[council] GNSO Review - Links to prior work

Jonathan Robinson jrobinson at afilias.info
Fri Aug 9 16:55:11 UTC 2013


In Durban I promised to provide links to prior work on the review of the
GNSO and GNSO Council.

Earlier this year, Bruce Tonkin assisted me with this information and so I'd
like to acknowledge his assistance.



The bylaws actually envisage a review of each Supporting Organization each
Supporting Organization Council.

The bylaws state:


1. The Board shall cause a periodic review of the performance and operation
of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each
Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the
Nominating Committee by an entity or entities independent of the
organization under review. The goal of the review, to be undertaken pursuant
to such criteria and standards as the Board shall direct, shall be to

	(i) whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN
structure, and 

	(ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is
desirable to improve its effectiveness.

These periodic reviews shall be conducted no less frequently than every five
years, based on feasibility as determined by the Board.  Each five-year
cycle will be computed from the moment of the reception by the Board of the
final report of the relevant review Working Group.

The results of such reviews shall be posted on the Website for public review
and comment, and shall be considered by the Board no later than the second
scheduled meeting of the Board after such results have been posted for 30
days. The consideration by the Board includes the ability to revise the
structure or operation of the parts of ICANN being reviewed by a two-thirds
vote of all members of the Board."


The Council was the first ICANN body to go through an independent review in

A bit of the history is laid out at:


Patrick Sharry carried out the independent review:


Previously (during the time of Bruce Tonkin being chair) the Council
undertook its own internal review against the same terms of reference.

The outcomes of the self-review are available in Appendix 3 of Patrick
Sharry's report:


Bruce argues (and I think I agree with him) that a body being reviewed will
benefit from undertaking a self-review.
That way the body to be reviewed will be prepared and in a good position to
effectively engage with the independent reviewer.

More information about the council mailing list