Third Accountability and Transparency Review: Difference between revisions

Line 92:

# Article 4 Reviews - Noting that it is best to approach the reformation of the review process "holistically," the draft report provided two possible options for addressing the myriad issues relating to specific and organzational reviews:

## Maintain the current set of specific and organizational reviews in combination with a new oversight mechanism to manage reviews and the implementation of recommendations. The new mechanism should be housed in an Independent Accountability Office (similar to the [[ICANN Ombudsman]]), which would have responsibility for SO/AC accountability as well as the job of coordinating the timing of reviews and the implementation of recommendations; or

## Maintain the spirit of Article 4.4 organizational reviews but conduct them as three- to five-day leadership workshops focused on self-assessment in a context of a continuous improvement process. The workshops would occur at least once every three years, or more often as desired by each organization subject to Article 4.4 review. Outcomes and recommendations from these workshops would be ~~publically~~ posted, and implementation would be tracked and reported on as well. The reports from these workshop reviews would feed into a new holistic organizational review of all SOs, ACs, and the NomCom. The holistic review would take place every seven years and have a maximum duration of twelve to eighteen months. The time between holistic reviews allows at least two cycles of self-assessment and improvement for each organization, as well as sufficient time to implement recommendations from the holistic review. For the Article 4.6 reviews, consolidate ATRT and the "accountability and transparency" directives of the CCT and RDS reviews into a single Accountability and Transparency review, to be conducted every seven years with a maximum duration of twelve to eighteen months. Conduct the SSR review as a three- to five-day workshop, or maintain the current review process for SSR reviews.

## Maintain the spirit of Article 4.4 organizational reviews but conduct them as three- to five-day leadership workshops focused on self-assessment in a context of a continuous improvement process. The workshops would occur at least once every three years, or more often as desired by each organization subject to Article 4.4 review. Outcomes and recommendations from these workshops would be publicly posted, and implementation would be tracked and reported on as well. The reports from these workshop reviews would feed into a new holistic organizational review of all SOs, ACs, and the NomCom. The holistic review would take place every seven years and have a maximum duration of twelve to eighteen months. The time between holistic reviews allows at least two cycles of self-assessment and improvement for each organization, as well as sufficient time to implement recommendations from the holistic review. For the Article 4.6 reviews, consolidate ATRT and the "accountability and transparency" directives of the CCT and RDS reviews into a single Accountability and Transparency review, to be conducted every seven years with a maximum duration of twelve to eighteen months. Conduct the SSR review as a three- to five-day workshop, or maintain the current review process for SSR reviews.

# Public comment - Expand public comment activities to not only seek general input on entire documents. Clearly identify the "intended audience" for a public comment proceeding ("general community, technical community, legal experts, etc."), so that anyone may respond but specific communities are called upon to respond. Provide a summary of key questions in plain language, and include any responses to these key questions in the staff report on the public comment proceeding. Where appropriate and feasible, provide translations of a summary of the document, as well as key questions, and accept responses from speakers of official ICANN languages.

# Accountability Indicators - Foster public awareness of the ICANN Accountability Indicators, including presentation of the indicators at an ICANN Meeting. The draft report "strongly suggest[ed]" that ICANN "rapidly undertake a serious review of its Accountability Indicators" to ensure: that they met their stated objectives; that they provided useful data; that they provided data that could inform a decision maker; and that the data for each indicator is current and up to date.

Line 206:

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;<br/>

4.4 Annual strategic objectives report;<br/>

4.5 ~~Over-arching~~ strategy and objectives report for each five-year strategic plan, including 2016-2020

4.5 Overarching 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.

@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 # Article 4 Reviews - Noting that it is best to approach the reformation of the review process "holistically," the draft report provided two possible options for addressing the myriad issues relating to specific and organzational reviews:
 ## Maintain the current set of specific and organizational reviews in combination with a new oversight mechanism to manage reviews and the implementation of recommendations. The new mechanism should be housed in an Independent Accountability Office (similar to the [[ICANN Ombudsman]]), which would have responsibility for SO/AC accountability as well as the job of coordinating the timing of reviews and the implementation of recommendations; or
-## Maintain the spirit of Article 4.4 organizational reviews but conduct them as three- to five-day leadership workshops focused on self-assessment in a context of a continuous improvement process. The workshops would occur at least once every three years, or more often as desired by each organization subject to Article 4.4 review. Outcomes and recommendations from these workshops would be publically posted, and implementation would be tracked and reported on as well. The reports from these workshop reviews would feed into a new holistic organizational review of all SOs, ACs, and the NomCom. The holistic review would take place every seven years and have a maximum duration of twelve to eighteen months. The time between holistic reviews allows at least two cycles of self-assessment and improvement for each organization, as well as sufficient time to implement recommendations from the holistic review. For the Article 4.6 reviews, consolidate ATRT and the "accountability and transparency" directives of the CCT and RDS reviews into a single Accountability and Transparency review, to be conducted every seven years with a maximum duration of twelve to eighteen months. Conduct the SSR review as a three- to five-day workshop, or maintain the current review process for SSR reviews.
+## Maintain the spirit of Article 4.4 organizational reviews but conduct them as three- to five-day leadership workshops focused on self-assessment in a context of a continuous improvement process. The workshops would occur at least once every three years, or more often as desired by each organization subject to Article 4.4 review. Outcomes and recommendations from these workshops would be publicly posted, and implementation would be tracked and reported on as well. The reports from these workshop reviews would feed into a new holistic organizational review of all SOs, ACs, and the NomCom. The holistic review would take place every seven years and have a maximum duration of twelve to eighteen months. The time between holistic reviews allows at least two cycles of self-assessment and improvement for each organization, as well as sufficient time to implement recommendations from the holistic review. For the Article 4.6 reviews, consolidate ATRT and the "accountability and transparency" directives of the CCT and RDS reviews into a single Accountability and Transparency review, to be conducted every seven years with a maximum duration of twelve to eighteen months. Conduct the SSR review as a three- to five-day workshop, or maintain the current review process for SSR reviews.
 # Public comment - Expand public comment activities to not only seek general input on entire documents. Clearly identify the "intended audience" for a public comment proceeding ("general community, technical community, legal experts, etc."), so that anyone may respond but specific communities are called upon to respond. Provide a summary of key questions in plain language, and include any responses to these key questions in the staff report on the public comment proceeding. Where appropriate and feasible, provide translations of a summary of the document, as well as key questions, and accept responses from speakers of official ICANN languages.
 # Accountability Indicators - Foster public awareness of the ICANN Accountability Indicators, including presentation of the indicators at an ICANN Meeting. The draft report "strongly suggest[ed]" that ICANN "rapidly undertake a serious review of its Accountability Indicators" to ensure: that they met their stated objectives; that they provided useful data; that they provided data that could inform a decision maker; and that the data for each indicator is current and up to date.
@@ Line 206: / Line 206: @@
 .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;<br/>
 .4 Annual strategic objectives report;<br/>
-.5 Over-arching strategy and objectives report for each five-year strategic plan, including 2016-2020
+.5 Overarching 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.