Changes

Advisory Committee input to the board has been instrumental in ICANN's history in a variety of ways.

Advisory Committee input to the board has been instrumental in ICANN's history in a variety of ways.

* In 2004, the [[SSAC]] was brought into the spotlight during the fallout from [[Verisign#Site Finder Service|Verisign's SiteFinder service]].

* In 2004, the [[SSAC]] was brought into the spotlight during the fallout from [[Verisign#Site Finder Service|Verisign's SiteFinder service]].

* The [[GAC]]'s Early Warning process during the [[New gTLD Program]] had substantial impacts on some applied-for strings. Notably, their advice regarding the delegation of [[.amazon]] was overturned after an [[Independent Review Process]] that determined that the ICANN board had given the GAC advice too much deference.

* The [[GAC]]'s Early Warning process during the [[New gTLD Program]] had substantial impacts on some applied-for strings.<ref>[https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice ICANN New gTLD Program - GAC Advice]</ref> Notably, their advice regarding the delegation of [[.amazon]] was overturned after an [[Independent Review Process]] that determined that the ICANN board had given the GAC advice too much deference.

* The [[RSSAC]]'s RSSAC037 document, "A Proposed Governance Model for the Root Server System,"<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-037-15jun18-en.pdf RSSAC037 - A Proposed Governance Model for the Root Server System], June 15, 2018</ref> was a critical update to and reference point for management of the DNS root server system.  

* The [[RSSAC]]'s RSSAC037 document, "A Proposed Governance Model for the Root Server System,"<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-037-15jun18-en.pdf RSSAC037 - A Proposed Governance Model for the Root Server System], June 15, 2018</ref> was a critical update to and reference point for management of the DNS root server system.  

* The [[ALAC]]'s advice regarding [[SSAD]] echoed other concerns within the ICANN community. The ALAC's broader critique of policy development processes that lead to unworkable proposals remains a salient topic in ICANN's ongoing conversations about its [[Prioritization Framework]] and the [[Evolution of the Multistakeholder Model]].

* The [[ALAC]]'s advice regarding [[SSAD]] echoed other concerns within the ICANN community. The ALAC's broader critique of policy development processes that lead to unworkable proposals remains a salient topic in ICANN's ongoing conversations about its [[Prioritization Framework]] and the [[Evolution of the Multistakeholder Model]].

In recent years, the ICANN Board's capacity to process advice from the ACs has been strained by the volume of inputs demanding the board's attention. At [[ICANN 73]] the ACs registered disappointment that their advice was not receiving due attention. At the joint meeting of the GAC and the board, [[Jorge Cancio]] noted that some of that could be attributed to the timeframe in which advice is received:

In recent years, the ICANN Board's capacity to process advice from the ACs has been strained by the volume of inputs demanding the board's attention. At [[ICANN 73]] the ACs registered disappointment that their advice was not receiving due attention. At the joint meeting of the GAC and the board, [[Jorge Cancio]] noted that some of that could be attributed to the timeframe in which advice is received:

<blockquote>The idea of a question, at least in my eyes, is when is the input from the GAC or from any other advisory committee, most opportune. Most efficient because if -- when it comes after the recommendations are finalized by the GNSO, for instance, and the decision is already before the Board, and the GAC or ALAC or some other advisory committee issues an advice on those recommendations, which would, for example, imply that some of the recommendations are adapted, if the Board's role in your understanding is not to change those recommendations, it's not possible to say okay, recommendation 6 says we will do A, B and C but ALAC and GAC say that we should also do D, so we ask the Board to decide that the final recommendation has to be A, B, C and D. If that is not your role, then this calls a little bit into question what is the affectivity, the efficiency of such advice, that moment this time.<ref>[https://73.schedule.icann.org/meetings/zEse3bALxXMxoi2rz ICANN 73 Archive - Joint Session: ICANN Board and GAC], March 9, 2022 (registration/login required)</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>The idea of a question, at least in my eyes, is when is the input from the GAC or from any other advisory committee, most opportune. Most efficient because if -- when it comes after the recommendations are finalized by the GNSO, for instance, and the decision is already before the Board, and the GAC or ALAC or some other advisory committee issues an advice on those recommendations, which would, for example, imply that some of the recommendations are adapted, if the Board's role in your understanding is not to change those recommendations, it's not possible to say okay, recommendation 6 says we will do A, B and C but ALAC and GAC say that we should also do D, so we ask the Board to decide that the final recommendation has to be A, B, C and D. If that is not your role, then this calls a little bit into question what is the affectivity, the efficiency of such advice, that moment this time.<ref>[https://73.schedule.icann.org/meetings/zEse3bALxXMxoi2rz ICANN 73 Archive - Joint Session: ICANN Board and GAC], March 9, 2022 (registration/login required)</ref></blockquote>

==References==

==References==