[CCWG-ACCT] ICANN Board comments on recommendation 9

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello All,


Board Comment - Recommendation 9:

As noted in its comments on the third draft proposal, the Board supports the incorporation of the AOC reviews into the Bylaws, while noting the importance of maintaining operational standards for reviews outside of the Bylaws.  While the Board agrees that operational standards should be in alignment with the provisions of the Bylaws, the Board views operational standards as a more suitable place to address multiple review-related operational items that do not belong in the Bylaws.

There are a few specific areas that the Board is flagging in relation to the operational standards - 

a)     The Board is concerned about potential constrains that may limit flexibility and effectiveness in the operational standards and that certain CCWG-Accountability recommendations may not be aligned with best practices or industry standards, including:  

o   Fixed numbers of total review team members, as well as a fixed allocation among SO/ACs, without consideration of specific issues and required expertise for a given review.

o   Unlimited number of participants, in addition to the appointed review team members, potentially affecting the team's productivity.

o   Exact trigger points for the commencement of reviews without taking into account the Community bandwidth, or the state of pending implementation activities. 

b)     To accommodate differing needs of reviews, the Board recommends leaving the number of review team members to the selectors of a specific review team, as to prescribing a specific formula for composition.  This could leave to the selectors the flexibility, for example, to  include more members from a specific SO or AC that is more impacted by a specific review, without hardcoding numbers into the Bylaws that might need to be changed later.

c)      The Board is concerned with the CCWG-Accountability's recommendations on determinations of how consensus is applied.  Imposing Bylaws requirements on allowing participants and observers, or requiring consensus calls are other examples where trying to hardcode specific requirements for reviews now might actually develop reviews that are less efficient, more resource intensive, and detract from the responsibilities of the review teams. 

The Board notes that the ICANN community would benefit from a review schedule that would take into consideration community bandwidth and ICANN resources in developing a staggered or phased review schedule.   These factors should determine what a workable number of concurrent reviews would be and ensure that no more than that number of reviews are scheduled at the same time.

Finally, the Board would like to highlight the work that has been underway within ICANN towards improving review effectiveness so that the CCWG and the community may factor this work in the development of operational standards.   Work has been underway on the development of Operational Standards since last year, originating from ATRT2 recommendation 11 to improve effectiveness of Reviews together with Board Resolution 2015.07.28.14.   In July 2015, after factoring public comments, the Board endorsed the proposed process and operational improvements designed to simplify and increase the effectiveness of Reviews.  The Organizational Effectiveness Board Committee is currently working to finalize Policies, Procedures and Guidelines for the Organizational Reviews mandated by the Bylaws.
 
Regards,

Bruce Tonkin

ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG