14,932
edits
Changes
mLine 49:
Line 49: − + Line 242:
Line 242: + + + + + + + + + + + + + − [[Category:ICANN Reviews]]
removed Category:ICANN Reviews using HotCat
After receipt of the IE's final report, the SSAC membership engaged in a self-assessment exercise, resulting in a report to the RWG in June 2009<ref name="wgdraft">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssac-review-wg-draft-report-18sep09-en.pdf SSAC1 - Draft Report of the RWG], September 18, 2009</ref> During [[ICANN 35]] in Sydney, the RWG discussed the final report from JAS as well as the SSAC self-assessment report, and began to formulate proposals for the implementation of improvements recommended in each report.<ref name="wgdraft" />
After receipt of the IE's final report, the SSAC membership engaged in a self-assessment exercise, resulting in a report to the RWG in June 2009<ref name="wgdraft">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssac-review-wg-draft-report-18sep09-en.pdf SSAC1 - Draft Report of the RWG], September 18, 2009</ref> During [[ICANN 35]] in Sydney, the RWG discussed the final report from JAS as well as the SSAC self-assessment report, and began to formulate proposals for the implementation of improvements recommended in each report.<ref name="wgdraft" />
===Draft Report===
===RWG Draft Report===
In its draft report, the RWG collated the IE's recommendations, the SSAC's response, and the working group's consensus opinion on each recommendation from the IE's final report, as well as the additional recommendations from the SSAC Self-Assessment:
In its draft report, the RWG collated the IE's recommendations, the SSAC's response, and the working group's consensus opinion on each recommendation from the IE's final report, as well as the additional recommendations from the SSAC Self-Assessment:
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
====Written Comments====
====Written Comments====
The draft report was also published for written comments.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ssac-review-2009-2009-10-05-en Public Comment Proceeding - SSAC1 Review Working Group Draft Report], October 5, 2009</ref> One comment was submitted via email. John Curran, as promised, submitted a comment stating that the SSAC's position on Recommendation 6 was correct, and that it was important for SSAC's charter to reflect its ability to engage with and advise on ICANN's internal operations and processes.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/ssac-review-2009/msg00000.html SSAC1 Listserv Archive - John Curran's comment on the Draft Report of RWG], October 28, 2009</ref>
The draft report was also published for written comments.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ssac-review-2009-2009-10-05-en Public Comment Proceeding - SSAC1 Review Working Group Draft Report], October 5, 2009</ref> One comment was submitted via email. John Curran, as promised, submitted a comment stating that the SSAC's position on Recommendation 6 was correct, and that it was important for SSAC's charter to reflect its ability to engage with and advise on ICANN's internal operations and processes.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/ssac-review-2009/msg00000.html SSAC1 Listserv Archive - John Curran's comment on the Draft Report of RWG], October 28, 2009</ref>
===RWG Final Report===
The Final Report of the RWG was submitted to the board in January 2010.<ref name="rwgfp">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssac-review-wg-final-report-29jan10-en.pdf SSAC1 - Review Working Group Final Report], January 29, 2010</ref> The final report is nearly identical to the draft, although the RWG's response and advice regarding Recommendation 5 (disclosure of confidential or proprietary information) changed in line with the discussion in Seoul.<ref name="rwgfp" /> the RWG suggested implementation of a more specific process, and a twelve-month trial period for that process:
<blockquote>The WG agrees with the comments formulated by reviewers and based on sound governance considerations, but in the meantime agrees with SSAC and considers that there is no need to amend its Charter.
It remarks that SSAC has a legitimate right to ask for access to confidential or proprietary information that is needed to fill its mandate, requests that need to be motivated by appropriate reasons.
However, this does not imply the right for SSAC to force ICANN –or any other party – to disclose any requested confidential or proprietary information. In case of its disclosure, this information has to be treated under the terms set/to be set by the owners of the information; this could imply the signing of time and project‐specific confidentiality agreements or other measures considered appropriate by the information owners
In the case of requests to ICANN the WG suggests that the CEO, and if necessary the Board, should decide on the access to confidential or proprietary information, considering the reasons for the request, and the possibility to set and enforce specific terms of access. Any recurrence of this process should be properly documented.
This process should not however result in unnecessary delays to the work of SSAC; the WG advises therefore the Board to assess the effectiveness of this procedure after one year from its adoption.<ref name="rwgfp" /></blockquote>
Perhaps reflecting Dennis Jennings' belief that the RWG's conclusion regarding Recommendation 6 was strong enough, particularly when bolstered by the process proposed in the revised response to Recommendation 5, the final report made no changes to its response to Recommendation 6.<ref name="rwgfp" />
The RWG also added a note to Recommendation 30, noting that an "informal" process of conflicts disclosure should still involve documenting situations when conflicts of interests arise, and maintaining records of those incidents in a transparent manner.<ref name="rwgfp" />
==Board Action and Implementation==
The board acknowledged receipt of the RWG's final report in March 2010, and instructed the SIC to develop and propose an implementation plan for the review recommendations.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-03-12-en#1.6 Board Resolutions 2010.03.12.09-12], March 12, 2010</ref> The implementation plan was developed by the SIC and SSAC support staff,<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-06-25-en#1.4 Resolution (2010.06.25.05) of the Board], June 25, 2010</ref> and subsequent implementation efforts continued throughout 2010 and into 2011. On March 18, 2011, the SSAC presented its final implementation report, marking all implementation tasks as complete.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/improvements-implementation-plan-18mar11-en.pdf SSAC1 - Improvements Implementation Plan (Final)], March 18, 2011</ref> This marked the end of the SSAC1 review.<ref name="dashboard" />
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Organizational Reviews]]
[[Category:Organizational Reviews]]