3,197
edits
Changes
Third Accountability and Transparency Review (view source)
Revision as of 20:58, 9 July 2021
, 3 years agono edit summary
Following the public comment period, in November 2020, the ICANN Board approved the recommendations from the final report for action and consideration, with the caveat that implementation was "subject to prioritization" and, in some cases, would require additional community input and buy-in.<ref name="approveres">[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-11-30-en#1.a Resolution of the Board], November 30, 2020</ref> In the attached recommendation scorecard,<ref name="scorecard">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-atrt3-final-recs-board-action-scorecard-30nov20-en.pdf ICANN Resolution Archive - ATRT3 Recommendations Scorecard]</ref> the Board acknowledged and approved the following recommendations, identified dependencies for each, and identified next steps for each:
Following the public comment period, in November 2020, the ICANN Board approved the recommendations from the final report for action and consideration, with the caveat that implementation was "subject to prioritization" and, in some cases, would require additional community input and buy-in.<ref name="approveres">[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-11-30-en#1.a Resolution of the Board], November 30, 2020</ref> In the attached recommendation scorecard,<ref name="scorecard">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-atrt3-final-recs-board-action-scorecard-30nov20-en.pdf ICANN Resolution Archive - ATRT3 Recommendations Scorecard]</ref> the Board acknowledged and approved the following recommendations, identified dependencies for each, and identified next steps for each:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Recommendation
! Dependencies
! Resources/Costs
! Other Considerations
! Action Items
!
|-
| 'Public Comment'': 1.1 Plain language summaries, key questions, translation of same;1.2 Explore alternate methods of receiving feedback and systematize the use of such methods; publish an updated public comment guidelines document
| ICANN organization plans to launch certain features of its Information Transparency Initiative (ITI) by the start of Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, i.e. by July 1 2021. ICANN org’s Public Comment and ITI teams will provide training to all appropriate ICANN org functions to ensure readiness for the launch of the new Public Comment feature and to stress the importance of all guidelines on public comments.
| Costs are already assumed in the operating budgets for ITI and Public Comment staff. Any additional costs to be assessed before including in a resourcing plan.
| ICANN sought public feedback on the ITI initiative and new public comment systems. ICANN org’s Public Comment team also met with the ATRT3 team in late 2019 to provide an overview of the new Public Comment features. The new Public Comment features to be launched with ITI will enable improved tracking of those initiatives for which alternative feedback mechanisms were used.
| Board approves these recommendations and notes that the ITI covers many of the action items contained in the recommendations; thus, implementation of recommendations should be subject to ITI timeline. 1.1 and 1.2 may need to be separately tracked as they involve distinct work efforts.
|
|-
| 'ATRT2 Implementation'':
| Further work and coordination are necessary between ICANN org and the ATRT3 Implementation Shepherds to understand more clearly what can be done to consider the ATRT2 recommendations fully implemented.
| An understanding of the full scope of the implementation steps is needed, in order to estimate anticipated resources/costs.
|
| The Board directs ICANN org to undertake a thorough analysis of the ATRT3’s suggestions pertaining to the implementation of ATRT2 recommendations, and to engage with the ATRT3 Implementation Shepherds regarding those suggestions to identify resource effective means, where appropriate, to complete the implementation of the ATRT2 recommendations discussed in the ATRT3 assessment.
|
|-
| 'Specific Reviews'': 3.1 Suspend any further RDS Reviews until the next ATRT Review can consider the future of RDS Reviews in light of the final EPDP report recommendations, the results of the Board’s consideration of these, as well as any other developments which affect Directory Services3.2 One additional CCT Review after the next round of new gTLD applications3.3 Suspend any further SSR Reviews until the next ATRT Review (or similar), which shall decide whether to terminate, amend, or maintain SSR Reviews as-is3.4 Continue ATRT Reviews with recommended improvements3.5
| These recommendations require amendments to the ICANN Bylaws, which requires broad community support for the proposed amendments. There needs to be a set of objective, uniform criteria in place for a future ATRT team to utilize regarding decisions to terminate or amend reviews
| Conducting a CCT Review: $2.2MM
| This recommendation addresses some, but not all, of the issues with the current review mechanism, as identified by collaborative efforts of the board, org, and community. Aspects of the recommended implementation timeline may not be feasible, given the need to amend bylaws.
| The Board approves Recommendations 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4, subject to community agreement to the Bylaws change. When deemed appropriate through the prioritization process, the Board directs ICANN org to begin the process to make the appropriate Bylaw amendments, but if the Empowered Community rejects the Bylaws changes, further ICANN community discussion would be required before implementation. Further, the Board notes that there may be a need to track implementation of Recommendations 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 separately due to the distinct work efforts and implementation steps required.
|
|-
| 'Holistic Review''3.5 Create a "Holistic Review"" in accordance with ATRT3 recommendations and existing ICANN guidelines for specific reviews"
| As above, this will require amendments to the ICANN Bylaws, and thus requires broad community support for those amendments. ICANN Board also requires more information regarding specifics, including resourcing needs. However, the Holistic Review could be run as a pilot program, alleviating the need to amend the Bylaws, and also providing some practical experience regarding best practices, resources required, and pitfalls to avoid. Any pilot would still need widespread buy-in from the ICANN community. The Holistic Review concept has multiple potential dependencies and cross-over with other ICANN projects, including Work Stream 2, Board efforts to streamline the review process, and other recommendations from the ATRT3 team. Objective criteria will also need to be developed regarding the usefulness of this review process and whether to continue this or any other review.
| Many specifics need to be nailed down to understand potential costs as well as resource support.
| Simultaneous launching of continuous improvement mechanisms within ICANN structures and the Holistic Review will be challenging. Recommended timeframes for full implementation of these process may be unrealistic. The framework and standards for continuous improvement efforts across structures need consideration and development to ensure apples-to-apples comparisons and scoring.
| Subject to prioritization and available resources, the Board directs ICANN org to initiate the first Holistic Review as a pilot, and operated pursuant to community-agreed Terms of Reference and relevant elements of the Operating Standards for Specific Reviews.
|
|-
| 'Organizational Reviews''3.6 Evolve the content of Organizational Reviews into continuous improvement programs in each SO/AC/NC
| Similar to Holistic Review: Bylaws amendment required, but a pilot Continuous Improvement Program could be run without amendment to Bylaws. The pilot would still require broad community buy-in. Also, pursuant to ATRT3's recommendation that org reviews be suspended, GNSO3's start date is an issue to be resolved.
| Estimated cost of planning for and implementing Continuous Improvement Programs for all SO/AC/NCs (could include developing periodic surveys, advising on methodology, and changes over time) in terms of possible external consultants (plus ICANN org time TBD): $150,000-200,000 (one time cost). Estimated cost of supporting Continuous Improvement Programs’ annual review: $35,000-50,000 per year per structure (provided they elect to hire independent examiners).
| Similar issues as above - simultaneous launch of evolution process and Holistic Review may be challenging. The recommended timeframes may not be realistic, and the transition period may involve some overlap with status quo efforts to improve the MSM, review process, and other projects. Objective standards for assessing continuous improvement progress need to be developed. The recommendation addresses some, but not all, of the problems with review processes that have identified through collaborative effort between the ICANN Board, org, and community.
| The Board approves Recommendation 3.6 with the caveat that more information is required to better understand how to operationalize the Continuous Improvement Program to ensure it yields the outcomes intended by the ATRT3 before a Bylaws amendment is completed. When deemed appropriate through the prioritization process, the Board directs ICANN org to initiate the development of a project plan to implement a pilot Continuous Improvement Program in alignment with ATRT3 intent, and in parallel with the views of ICANN structures based on their unique needs and interests, and taking into account any ongoing improvement processes by the ICANN structures.
|
|-
| 'Transparency and Accountability''4.1 Plain language description of how each goal, outcome, or operating initiative meets the objectives of a stated goal in the strategic plan;4.2 Plain language definitions of success & evaluation criteria for strategic or operational plans and goals;4.3 "Retrofit"" the 2021-2025 strategic plan and 2021 operating plan with a supplement that employs the processes of Recommendations 4.1 and 4.2 to establish clear goals
| objectives
| and criteria for success;
|
|
|
|-
| 4.4 Annual strategic objectives report;
|
|
|
|
|
|-
| 4.5 Over-arching strategy and objectives report for each five-year strategic plan
| including 2016-2020"
|
| Recommendations 4.1 and 4.2 are already within the scope of the budget; 4.3-4.5 would involve additional costs, which would either need to be separately resourced, or which may involve trade-offs in implementation between the recommendations.
| Recommendation timelines may be unreasonable given additional costs and the scope of work involved, particularly in Recommendation 4.3. ICANN already does a lot of this (hence the existing budget for Recommendations 4.1 and 4.2). Implementation should build on and leverage current reporting methods and approaches.
| The Board approves the Recommendations 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 subject to prioritization, noting however that the timing requirement stipulated in Recommendation 4.3 (that a supplementary document be produced within six months of approving this recommendation) is not feasible within the specified timeline.
|-
| 'Prioritization''Create an annual process of prioritization that gathers representatives from ICANN Board, ICANN org, and any SOs or ACs that wish to participate (one representative from each). This panel would operate by consensus, and would integrate into existing financial and strategic planning processes. The panel would be charged to establish a priority order for recommendations resulting from reviews, cross-community working groups, and any other community-sourced process the Board deems appropriate.
| The Board notes the community, Board, and org’s ongoing efforts to prioritize ICANN’s work as part of the planning process. Implementation of R5 will be incorporated as part of prioritization of all of ICANN’s work, using a framework for prioritization is developed. The work on prioritization will include the work plans for the Planning at ICANN Operating Initiative as included in ICANN’s FY21-25 Operating Plan.
| Estimated cost of planning for and implementing a community led prioritization process and running a pilot of such a process could include possible external consultants (plus ICANN org time TBD): $75,000-150,000 (one-time cost).
| The Board's submitted public comment on the draft report stated that existing prioritization efforts and process should be leveraged, instead of creating an entirely new entity. The design of a community-led prioritization process will need to take into account, and/or be complementary to the efforts to prioritize the ongoing work of all of ICANNs as part of the Planning at ICANN operating initiative as included in the FY21-25 Operating Plan. The Board's fiduciary duty to make decisions in the public interest and the interests a secure and stable DNS cannot be waived or superseded by a community process.
| The Board approves this recommendation and directs ICANN org to proceed to implementation. The Board acknowledges that the implementation of this recommendation is dependent upon the need to prioritize all of ICANN’s work through the annual planning cycle, and the need for the development of a framework in collaboration with the community and ICANN org. The Board directs ICANN org to develop a framework of prioritization taking into account community groupings, mechanisms, and processes. The Board directs ICANN org to facilitate efforts to develop a framework toward achieving an agreed upon definition of what it would mean for the prioritization process to “operate by consensus of the individual SO/ACs, Board, and org members that are participating in the prioritization process.”
|
|}
ATRT3 is, as of July 2021, in the implementation phase.<ref name="dashboard" /> The Implementation Shepherds for ATRT3 are [[Adetola Sogbesan]], [[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]], [[Daniel Nanghaka]], [[Pat Kane]], [[Sebastien Bachollet]], and [[Vanda Scartezini]].<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/atrt/ATRT3+Implementation+Shepherds ATRT3 Workspace - Implementation Shepherds]</ref>
ATRT3 is, as of July 2021, in the implementation phase.<ref name="dashboard" />
===Impact on Organizational Reviews===
===Impact on Organizational Reviews===