14,932
edits
Changes
→Initiation and Selection of Independent Examiner
The '''First ALAC Organizational Review''' (At-Large1) was conducted between 2008 and 2010, with implementation of improvements continuing through 2012.<ref name="dashboard">[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/atlarge1-progress-milestones-2019-07-24-en ICANN.org - At-Large1 Dashboard]</ref>
The '''First ALAC Organizational Review''' (At-Large1) was conducted between 2007 and 2010, with implementation of improvements continuing through 2012.<ref name="dashboard">[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/atlarge1-progress-milestones-2019-07-24-en ICANN.org - At-Large1 Dashboard]</ref>
==Background==
Article 4.4 of the [[ICANN Bylaws]] requires periodic review of all [[Supporting Organizations|supporting organizations]] and [[Advisory Committee|advisory committees]], as well as the [[NomCom|Nominating Committee]].<ref name="art44">[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4.4 ICANN Bylaws - Article 4.4]</ref> The bylaws state three objectives for the review:
# to determine whether that organization, council or committee has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure;
# if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness; and
# whether that organization, council or committee is accountable to its constituencies, stakeholder groups, organizations and other stakeholders.<ref name="art44" />
Organizational reviews are conducted by independent examiners, selected through a competitive bidding process.<ref name="art44" /> The independent examiner works in consultation with a working group assembled by the board, who will act as implementation shepherds once the final report of the independent examiner is submitted.<ref name="hub" />The review parameters are set by the ICANN Board, and those parameters as well as other avenues of inquiry are typically included in the request for proposals (RFP) for independent examiners.<ref name="art44" /><ref name="hub">[https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/org ICANN.org - Organizational Reviews]</ref> Reviews can take anywhere from three to five years to complete. The full review process includes [[ICANN Reviews#ICANN Review Cycle|seven phases]], including the implementation of recommendations from the review.<ref name="hub" /> Reviews must be conducted at least every five years, measuring from the date that the final report of the previous review was accepted by the ICANN Board.<ref name="hub" /> The [[At-Large Advisory Committee]] is one of the organizations subject to the review requirements of Article 4.4.<ref name="hub" />
==Initiation and Selection of Independent Examiner==
The [[ICANN Board]] initiated the At-Large1 review in June 2007.<ref name="dashboard" /> The board published an RFP,<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-20jun07-en.pdf ICANN.org - Independent Expert Request for Proposals], June 20, 2007</ref> along with a Terms of Reference (ToR)<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-tor-20jun07-en.pdf ICANN.org - Final ToR for At-Large1], June 20, 2007</ref> describing the scope of the review, on June 20, 2007<ref name="dashboard" />
On January 23, 2008, the board approved two motions: appointing members to the At-Large1 Working group and approving the selection of [[Westlake Consulting]] as the independent examiner for the review.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-2008-01-23-en#11 Resolutions of the Board], Numbers 11 and 12, January 23, 2008</ref> Westlake began work in late January or early February, and audited sessions and conducted interviews at [[ICANN 31]] in New Delhi and afterward.<ref name="wlrep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/alac-independent-review-final-25jul08-en.pdf At-Large1 - Final Report of the Independent Examiner], July 25, 2008</ref>
==Report of Independent Examiner==
Westlake submitted its final report to the board in July 2008.<ref name="dashboard" /> The report contained a total of twenty-four recommendations, based on the fact-finding and analysis conducted by Westlake. The fact-finding included attending ALAC sessions at ICANN 31, interviews with ICANN staff, community members, and ALAC leaders, and research into the mission and purpose of ALAC and other constituent groups within the ICANN structure.<ref name="wlrep" />
===Review Outcomes===
Westlake concluded that the ALAC serves an essential purpose within the ICANN structure.<ref name="wlrep" /> A number of recommendations were directed at the second foundational inquiry - whether changes to the structure or operation of the ALAC was desirable. Recommendations included additional staffing and resources from the ICANN organization, an increase in NomCom appointees to the ALAC, and extension of the term of liaison positions to the ICANN Board to two years.<ref name="wlrep" /> With regard to ALAC's effectiveness, the report emphasized the need for annual goal-setting and strategic planning, refinement and increased transparency of the [[ALS]] application process, and expansion of multi-lingual communications. Westlake echoed comments received that the ALAC was doing good work regarding outreach and connection with its constituencies, it noted that increases in effectiveness would have a beneficial effect on the overall accountability of the committee to its stakeholders.<ref name="wlrep" />
===Public comment===
The report received eleven comments during the public comment period.<ref name="pc">[https://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-final-2008/threads.html ICANN.org Listserv Archive - 2008 At-Large1 Final Report]</ref> The ALAC response, authored by [[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]], noted that many [[RALO]]s were critical of omissions from the final report:
<blockquote>Generally, from an ALAC perspective, we recognise that the Westlake report has indeed been quite complementary about the work and continuing purpose within ICANN of the current ALAC, and that only relatively minor recommendations for change in structure or operations have been suggested and further more [sic] in the case of several of these the ALAC has already undertaken or is currently addressing the identified issues independently.
On analysis of the aforementioned RALO comments, it is however clear that the report is subject to specific criticism not so much for what it does say (with the notable exception of recommendation 7*) but rather for what it does not. This is best considered to be a fault in the clear communication of outcomes and expectations between the independent consultants and some of their key interviewees early on in the data collection process.
Clearly many in the At-Large community and in the RALOs expected a report that specifically reflected their comments and opinion to a greater degree than this one has.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-final-2008/pdfoDP7zhskgu.pdf ALAC Overview Report], September 12, 2008 (PDF)</ref></blockquote>
''*Recommendation 7 stated that "The ALAC position on the Board should remain that of a Liaison, with rights to full participation and information, but no voting rights."''
Other comments were critical of ICANN's recent decisions regarding reorganization, which they saw as designed to sideline the ALAC and degrade commitment to ICANN's multistakeholder model.<ref name="pc" /> Still others saw no point in the ALAC as currently configured and urged a consolidation and devolution of the structure around the committee.<ref name="pc" />
==Working Group Activity==
The At-Large Review Working Group (ARWG) began work in the months following release of Westlake's final report. In October 2008, the ARWG published a "Mid-Point Consultation Report" for public comment.<ref name="midrep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/midpoint-consultation-report-21oct08-en.pdf Mid-Point Consultation Report], October 21, 2008</ref> The goal of the report was to generate discussion, feedback and talking points in the lead-up to [[ICANN 33]] in Cairo.<ref name="midrep" /> Notably, the report suggested that the ALAC should have two voting chairs on the ICANN Board, as compared to the Westlake report's recommendation that the organization's participation at the board level remain that of a liaison.<ref name="midrep" /> Public comments on the mid-point report ranged from dismissive of any effort to reform ALAC to strongly supportive of the recommendations in the report.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/ ICANN.org Listserv Archive - At-Large1 Mid-Point Report Comments]</ref> The ICANN 33 session on the review focused primarily on the topics of board seats and properly resourcing ALAC's activities. There was also discussion of how regional and ALS actions, advice, and comments get funneled through ALAC to ICANN.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/cairo2008/files/meetings/cairo2008/workshop-atlarge-review-05nov08.txt ICANN.org Archive - At-Large Review Transcript], ICANN 33 (Cairo), 2008</ref>
Following the public comment period and feedback sessions, the working group produced its draft report for public comment in January 2009.<ref name="dashboard" /> The draft report maintained the call for two ALAC-appointed voting seats on the ICANN board.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/reviews/alac/final-report-alac-review-28jan09-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - Draft Final Report, At-Large1 Working Group], January 28, 2009</ref> Public comment was largely supportive of the findings and recommendations in the report. The proposal of board representation was supported by the majority of commenters, with some dissent.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-review/pdfEB4HXCtVLG.pdf ICANN.org - Staff Report on Public Comment Proceeding], May 2009</ref>
==Final Report and Implementation==
The working group's final report was submitted to the ICANN Board in June 2009.<ref name="dashboard" /> The board acknowledged receipt of the report at the end of June and directed ICANN staff to begin work on an implementation plan for recommendations that could be implemented without further review. The question of board seats was deferred pending board discussions on the appropriate number and composition of both the board and the [[Nominating Committee]].<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2009-06-26-en?routing_type=path#12 Resolution of the Board], June 26, 2009</ref> A year later, in June 2010, an implemenation plan was submitted to the Board, with the question of board seats still in limbo.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/2950348/ALAC-At-Large+Improvements+Implementation+Project+Plan+%287+June+2010%29.pdf ICANN.org - At-Large1 Implementation Project Plan], June 7, 2010</ref> The board requested a summary of the plan at its next regular meeting.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-06-25-en#1.8 Resolution of the Board], June 25, 2010</ref> The board approved the implementation plan in August 2010.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-08-05-en?routing_type=path#2.h Resolution of the Board], August 5, 2010</ref>
The final report of ALAC's implementation project team was delivered in June 2012, with all recommendations marked as 100% complete. This included the creation of one board seat (seat 15) appointed by the ALAC.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/34603644/ALAC%20At-Large%20Improvements%20Implementation%20Project%20-%20Final%20Report%2014%20June%202012.pdf At-Large1 Implementation Project Final Report], June 20, 2012</ref>
==References==
{{reflist}}
__NOTOC__
[[Category:Organizational Reviews]]