ICANN Reviews
As a public service organization, ICANN's bylaws establish the scope and direction of the organization's mission, commitments, and core values.[1] The Bylaws specify review processes for ICANN and its stakeholder organizations.[2] The review processes are designed to ensure that ICANN is performing its mission in the best way possible.[3] Reviews aim to evaluate the health of the multistakeholder model, ICANN transparency and accountability, organizational effectiveness, and the security and stability of the DNS.[3]
ICANN Review Cycle edit
Specific and Organizational Reviews each follow process models that share a common set of themes and expectations. In each process, the review is planned by a team or work party. In the case of Organizational Reviews, there is then the intervening step of selecting and engaging an Independent Examiner. Then, the review is conducted. Organization Reviews move directly to implementation, while Specific Reviews submit findings and recommendations to the ICANN Board, which then acts on the recommendations. In each case, the implementation of recommendations is refined and improved, and the implemented improvements become standard procedure. The different action phases are laid out below:
| Action Phase | Specific Reviews | Organizational Reviews |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 | Assemble a Review Team | Assemble a Working Party |
| Phase 2 | Plan Review | Plan Review |
| Phase 3 | Conduct Review | Engage Independent Examiner |
| Phase 4 | Board Action | Conduct Review |
| Phase 5 | Plan Implementation | Plan Implementation |
| Phase 6 | Implement Improvements | Implement Improvements |
| Phase 7 | New Standard Operating Procedure | New Standard Operating Procedure |
Specific Reviews edit
ICANN's operations are subject to periodic Specific Reviews, enumerated in Article 4.6 of the bylaws:[4]
- Accountability and Transparency (ATRT) - focused on ICANN operations[5]
- Security, Stability, & Resiliency (SSR) - focused on the DNS[6]
- Registration Directory Service (RDS/WHOIS) - focused on registration data and public access to registration information[7]
- Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice (CCT) - ushered in as part of the New gTLD Program, this review is focused on the domain marketplace and the experience of registrants and other consumers[8]
Timing & Process edit
ATRT, SSR, and RDS/WHOIS reviews must take place periodically, and no more than five years after the last review team was convened[9] A CCT review is initiated one year after the launch of a New gTLD application round.[9]
Review teams typically include members, observers, and/or liaisons from stakeholder groups, supporting organizations and advisory committees.[9] The review process timeline runs between three to nearly five years, and involves multiple opportunities for participation, public comment, and deliberation among stakeholders.[10]
Organizational Reviews edit
Each supporting organization and advisory committee, as well as the Nominating Committee is periodically reviewed pursuant to Article 4.4 of the Bylaws.[11] The GAC is exempted from Article 4.4, although it is charged to implement and deploy its own review processes.[12]
Timing & Process edit
The bylaws state that organizational reviews should take place no more than five years from the submission of the final report of the last review to the ICANN Board. However, that requirement is flexible, and "based on feasibility as determined by the Board."[12]
An Independent Examiner is contracted to perform the fact finding, assessment, reporting, and recommendations of the review process. The examiner is selected through a competitive bid process.[13] The review timeline for organization reviews can stretch between three to five years.[11] Like specific reviews, the process has multiple stages of public comment, as well as interaction and comment between the organization being reviewed and the Independent Examiner.[13]
Board Review edit
During the development of the organizational review process, the ICANN Board determined that it would be good for the organization if it also participated in a review process under the organizational review model. The ICANN Board Review occurred between 2007 and 2010, but was not repeated.[14] The Structural Improvements Committee (now known as the Organizational Effectiveness Committee) was tasked with presenting a set of actions and improvements based on the report of the board review working group.[15] Other mechanisms exist for review of the board, as well as the review of board decisions, within the ICANN Bylaws.[16]
Past Reviews edit
Specific Reviews edit
| Review Type & Number | Status | Date Initiated | Date Completed | ICANNWiki Page | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CCT #1 | Implementation Phase | October 1, 2015 | CCT1 | CCT1 Final Report - PDF | |
| ATRT #1 | Complete | January 11, 2010 | January 29, 2013 | ATRT1 | ATRT1 Final Report - PDF ATRT1 Implementation Report - PDF |
| ATRT #2 | Complete | October 5, 2012 | December 31, 2015 | ATRT2 | ATRT1 Final Report - PDF ATRT2 Implementation Report - PDF |
| ATRT #3 | Implementation Phase | January 31, 2017 | ATRT3 | ATRT3 Final Report | |
| RDS/WHOIS #1 | Complete | June 1, 2010 | December 31, 2015 | RDS1 | RDS1 Final Report (PDF) RDS1 Implementation Report (PDF) |
| RDS/WHOIS #2 | Implementation Phase | October 28, 2016 | RDS2 | RDS2 Final Report (PDF) | |
| SSR #1 | Complete | June 1, 2010 | December 31, 2015 | SSR1 | SSR1 Final Report (PDF) SSR1 Implementation Report (PDF) |
| SSR #2 | Awaiting Board Action | June 30, 2016 | SSR2 | SSR2 Final Report (PDF) |
Organizational Reviews edit
Efforts to Improve & Streamline the Review Process edit
Both the ICANN Board and ICANN staff have recently been engaged in efforts to improve the review process for both specific and organizational reviews. In 2019, the Board issued new Operating Standards for Specific Reviews[17] [18] In addition, ICANN staff drafted a process proposal for streamlining organizational reviews in April 2019.[19] Public comments on the proposal addressed a much broader range of challenges and difficulties than the proposed streamlining measures.[20]
The Board and staff of ICANN continue to address the issues raised during public comment processes, public meetings, and other communications related to the efficiency and timing of reviews.[21] In November 2019, Lars Hoffman presented at ICANN 66 on the topic of improving the effectiveness of review recommendations and their implementation.[22]
References edit
- ↑ ICANN Bylaws, Article 1
- ↑ ICANN Bylaws - Articles 4.4-4.6
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 ICANN.org - Review Dashboard
- ↑ ICANN.org - Specific (Article 4.6) Reviews
- ↑ ICANN.org - Accountability & Transparency Review
- ↑ ICANN.org - Security, Stability, & Resiliency Review
- ↑ ICANN.org - Registration Directory Service Review
- ↑ ICANN.org - Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 ICANN Bylaws, Article 4.6
- ↑ ICANN.org - Specific Reviews Process Flowchart, August 31, 2017 (PDF)
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 ICANN.org - Organizational Reviews
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 ICANN Bylaws, Article 4.4
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 ICANN.org - Organizational Review Process Flowchart, August 31, 2017 (PDF)
- ↑ ICANN Board Review Dashboard
- ↑ Resolution of the Board, June 25, 2010
- ↑ Article 4 provides for review mechanisms for board actions; Article 5 establishes the Ombudsman's office.
- ↑ ICANN.org Blog - Operating Standards: Guiding ICANN's Specific Reviews, July 8, 2019
- ↑ ICANN Operating Standards - Specific Reviews, June 23, 2019 (PDF)
- ↑ ICANN.org - Public Comment Archive, Process Proposal for Streamlining Organization Reviews, April 30, 2019
- ↑ Staff Report on Public Comment Process, July 30, 2019
- ↑ ICANN Blog - Enhancing and Streamlining ICANN's Reviews: Issues, Approaches, and Next Steps, October 31, 2019
- ↑ ICANN 66 Archive - Enhancing the Effectiveness of Review Recommendations, November 4, 2019 (registration with ICANN.org required)