3,197
edits
Changes
→Working Group Reports & "Implementation"
<blockquote>For example, the board is quite divided in its view on whether it effectively reviews implementation of policy, monitors ICANN’s business performance or has adequate focus on risks (Propositions A8, A9 and A12). There is no agreement about whether the board is well-informed about the health of the ICANN Community (A13). Only two-thirds of the board members are confident that the board understands the scope of its role, how its role differs to that of management and whether the board does indeed avoid inappropriately stepping into management territory (A1 to A6). The board is split on whether ICANN’s policy development process works well (C5).<ref name="finalrep" /></blockquote>
<blockquote>For example, the board is quite divided in its view on whether it effectively reviews implementation of policy, monitors ICANN’s business performance or has adequate focus on risks (Propositions A8, A9 and A12). There is no agreement about whether the board is well-informed about the health of the ICANN Community (A13). Only two-thirds of the board members are confident that the board understands the scope of its role, how its role differs to that of management and whether the board does indeed avoid inappropriately stepping into management territory (A1 to A6). The board is split on whether ICANN’s policy development process works well (C5).<ref name="finalrep" /></blockquote>
The report considered that now was an ideal time to addresses these differences of opinion, as board culture was friendly and cooperative, with solid trust in the leadership of the board and ICANN. In the view of the report, it was important to address these differences of opinion while the environment was hospitable, as "[t]he risk is that such divergent opinions can easily become the source of conflict and dysfunction inside the board, particularly if business conditions get tough."<ref name="finalrep" />
The report considered that now was an ideal time to addresses these differences of opinion, as board culture was friendly and cooperative, with solid trust in the leadership of the board and ICANN. In the view of the report, it was important to address these differences of opinion while the environment was hospitable, as "[t]he risk is that such divergent opinions can easily become the source of conflict and dysfunction inside the board, particularly if business conditions get tough."<ref name="finalrep" />
The report also grappled with the issue of board member compensation, arguing ultimately that it may be an effective tool in ensuring an increase in length of tenure and willingness of qualified volunteers to join the board.<ref name="finalrep" />
====Purpose====
====Purpose====
<li> Clarify the board's accountabilities.</li>
<li> Clarify the board's accountabilities.</li>
</ol>
</ol>
BCG identified some issues regarding the board's role and strategic focus that were reflective of the relative youth of ICANN as an institution, and what BCG considered to be growing pains common to many organizations.<ref name="finalrep" /> These recommendations and their sub-parts were the least controversial from the perspective of the ICANN community.
==Public Comment on Final Report==
BCG's final report received nine public comments via email.<ref name="finalpc">[https://forum.icann.org/lists/board-review-report/pdfEtsxUaX2Uu.pdf ICANN.org - Summary of Public Comments], December 15, 2008</ref> There was also some opportunity for comment at [[ICANN 33]] in Cairo, where the final report was the subject of a presentation by BCG representatives.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/cairo2008/en/node/1935.html ICANN 33 - Workshop: Board Review], November 3, 2008</ref> However, as was noted in some of the submitted comments, the length of the session impeded public input.<ref name="finalpc" />
A common theme among public commenters was that BCG did not understand ICANN or its unique role and circumstances.<ref name="finalpc" /> The review working group took pains in their own reports to acknowledge that the text of the final report demonstrated an understanding of ICANN's purpose and goals, noting also that the report (as quoted above) clearly articulated that the goal of the review was to identify and improve what works for ICANN. This undercut one main line of criticism from the public comments - that the review focused on treating ICANN's board like "any other corporate board."<ref name="firstwg">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-review-interim-report-20feb09-en.pdf Board Review - Draft Report of the Board Review Working Group], February 20, 2009</ref> Many commenters took issue with certain recommendations in the report, notably the proposal to reduce the size of the board. Others, however, agreed with the report and its objectives.<ref name="finalpc" />
==Working Group Reports & "Implementation"==
In its draft report to the board, the review working group agreed with the recommendations in the final report, but noted that in some cases (Recommendations 2 and 3), events had outpaced the arrival of the report, and the board was already implementing changes that addressed the issues raised. In the case of Recommendation 1 (board size and composition) and Recommendation 5 ("high performance" board culture, and specifically compensation of board members), the working group noted that these were complex issues that required input from the community before adoption of a specific plan.<ref name="firstwg" /> The draft report was discussed at [[ICANN 34]] in Mexico City.<ref name="secondwg">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-review-second-interim-report-05jun09-en.pdf Board Review - Second Interim Report of the Board Review Working Group], June 5, 2009</ref>
Public comment on the working group's draft report was again mixed, with strong support shown for certain topics (board compensation) but a persistent theme of disappointment that the review did not "understand" ICANN or its operations. There was sufficient diversity of responses that the working group saw fit to issue a second interim report for public comment. This second report was presented for public comment as well as a discussion session at [[ICANN 35]] in Sydney.<ref name="secondwg" /> In the second report, the working group stated that it was narrowing the focus of discussion exclusively to the issues of board size, board member compensation, and the timing of appointment and length of tenure of board members.<ref name="secondwg" /> The report stated that the board was already addressing the issues raised in Recommendations 2-4, and that the working group was in support of implementing recommendations 6-8, with some caveats regarding the feasibility of specific proposals within BCG's final report.<ref name="secondwg" />
The vast majority of discussion of the second interim report occurred at the [[ICANN 35]] meeting in Sydney. Only one substantive comment was submitted via email.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/board-second-interim/ ICANN.org Listserv Archive - Public Comment on Second Interim Report of Board Review Working Group]</ref> In its draft final report, the working group discussed the comments and feedback received in Sydney as well as via email.<ref name="wgdraftfin">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-review-wg-draft-final-report-19sep09-en.pdf Draft Final Report of the BR-WG], September 19, 2002</ref> Of the three outstanding issues listed in the second interim report, the following changes occurred:
* the draft final report did not recommend a reduction in board size until a period of at least three years had passed, on the theory that this would give other improvements and changes a sufficient amount of time to affect positive change;
* the draft final report did not recommend any plan to compensate board members. It did, however, recommend an increase in the term of board service to four years, with a limit of two consecutive terms of service, and an option for the board member to resign after two years of service in a second consecutive term.
Public comment on the draft report was minimal.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/board-review-2009/ ICANN.org Listserv Archive - Draft Final Report of the Board Review Working Group</ref> The working group submitted its final report to the board in January 2010.<ref name="dashboard" /><ref name="wgfinal">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-review-final-26jan10-en.pdf Final Report of the Board Review Working Group], January 26, 2010</ref> In nearly every recommendation category, the working group notes that either the board, a committee of the board, or both, are "already working" on the recommendations of BCG's final report, or something like them, in response to the issues raised by the report. As a result, the final report of the working group contains a great deal of support for the recommendations contained in BCG's final report, but very little implementation guidance.<ref name="wgfinal" />
The Board accepted the final report in March 2010, along with two other Article 4.4 organizational reviews ([[First SSAC Organizational Review|SSAC1]] and [[First NomCom Organizational Review|NomCom1]]), and instructed the [[Organizational Effectiveness Committee|SIC]] to develop implementation plans for each.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-03-12-en#1.6 Resolution of the Board], March 12, 2010</ref> In June 2010, the board again addressed the three reviews from the March meeting, and instructed the SIC to present "final implementation plans" for each.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-06-25-en#1.4 Resolution of the Board], June 25, 2010</ref>
ICANN's Board Review dashboard indicates that the June 2010 board resolution was the end of the implementation phase for the first and only Board Review.<ref name="dashboard" /> Implementation details are unavailable, likely because the working group's final report did not recommend any specific implementation plans.
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Organizational Reviews]]