Changes

Since the adoption of the original Bylaws, ACs have been tasked with "report[ing] their findings and recommendations to the Board."<ref name="ogbl">[https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/bylaws-1998-11-06-en#VII ICANN Bylaws, Article VII], as adopted November 6, 1998</ref> The original Bylaws did not prescribe any particular method of reporting.<ref name="ogbl" /> The Bylaws adopted as part of the [[2002 Evolution and Reform Process]] provided more detail regarding the structure and remit of each modern-day AC, but did not set any procedural or structural expectations for the delivery of advice.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/bylaws-2002-12-15-en#XI ICANN Bylaws, Article XI], as amended December 15, 2002</ref>  

Since the adoption of the original Bylaws, ACs have been tasked with "report[ing] their findings and recommendations to the Board."<ref name="ogbl">[https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/bylaws-1998-11-06-en#VII ICANN Bylaws, Article VII], as adopted November 6, 1998</ref> The original Bylaws did not prescribe any particular method of reporting.<ref name="ogbl" /> The Bylaws adopted as part of the [[2002 Evolution and Reform Process]] provided more detail regarding the structure and remit of each modern-day AC, but did not set any procedural or structural expectations for the delivery of advice.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/bylaws-2002-12-15-en#XI ICANN Bylaws, Article XI], as amended December 15, 2002</ref>  

The Bylaws adopted as part of the [[IANA Transition]] relocated the Advisory Committees to (now Roman) Article 12, and added prescriptive language regarding the provision of advice: advice is to be delivered through the submission of "clear and unambiguous written statement[s]," including a rationale for the provision of the advice.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2016-09-30-en#article12 ICANN Bylaws, Article 12], as amended October 1, 2016</ref> The current Bylaws maintain this language, noting that the ACs exist to advise the ICANN Community and Board on topics within each AC's purview.<ref name="art12" /> The Board's obligations regarding advice are also unchanged from the 2016 amended Bylaws: "The Board will respond in a timely manner to ''formal'' advice from all Advisory Committees explaining what action it took and the rationale for doing so"<ref name="art12" /> (Section 12.3 of the current Article 12; emphasis added). Although there is no definition of "formal advice," the inferred definition is advice submitted in written form as described in Section 12.3.  

The Bylaws adopted as part of the [[IANA Transition]] relocated the Advisory Committees to (no longer Roman) Article 12, and added prescriptive language regarding the provision of advice: advice is to be delivered through the submission of "clear and unambiguous written statement[s]," including a rationale for the provision of the advice.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2016-09-30-en#article12 ICANN Bylaws, Article 12], as amended October 1, 2016</ref> The current Bylaws maintain this language, noting that the ACs exist to advise the ICANN Community and Board on topics within each AC's purview.<ref name="art12" /> The Board's obligations regarding advice are also unchanged from the 2016 amended Bylaws: "The Board will respond in a timely manner to ''formal'' advice from all Advisory Committees explaining what action it took and the rationale for doing so"<ref name="art12" /> (Section 12.3 of the current Article 12; emphasis added). Although there is no definition of "formal advice," the inferred definition is advice submitted in written form as described in Section 12.3.  

 

This leaves open the question of how, if at all, ACs may interject in other conversations that impact their constituencies. The [[First Accountability and Transparency Review]] recommended that the board seek methods of soliciting and incorporating advice into its decision making process in a more defined and transparent manner:

This leaves open the question of how, if at all, ACs may interject in other conversations that impact their constituencies. The [[First Accountability and Transparency Review]] recommended that the board seek methods of soliciting and incorporating advice into its decision making process in a more defined and transparent manner:

<blockquote>6. The Board should clarify, as soon as possible but no later than June 2011 the distinction between issues that are properly subject to ICANN’s policy development processes and those matters that are properly within the executive functions performed by the ICANN staff and Board and, as soon as practicable, develop complementary mechanisms for consultation in appropriate circumstances with the relevant SOs and ACs on administrative and executive issues that will be addressed at Board level.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-recommendations-31dec10-en.pdf ATRT1 Final Recommendations], December 31, 2010 (PDF)</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>6. The Board should clarify, as soon as possible but no later than June 2011 the distinction between issues that are properly subject to ICANN’s policy development processes and those matters that are properly within the executive functions performed by the ICANN staff and Board and, as soon as practicable, develop complementary mechanisms for consultation in appropriate circumstances with the relevant SOs and ACs on administrative and executive issues that will be addressed at Board level.<ref name="atrt1">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-recommendations-31dec10-en.pdf ATRT1 Final Recommendations], December 31, 2010 (PDF)</ref></blockquote>

While more broadly addressing transparency in issue identification and decision making by the board, the recommendation spurred an examination of the board's engagement with the community, and the timing and evaluation of advice from the ACs.<ref name="pcrec6>[https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/community-input-and-advice-process-24-09-2012 Public Comment Proceeding - Community Input and Advice], September 24, 2012</ref> The board identified three primary decision making processes that it engages in: review and approval of policy development processes; "Organizational Administrative Functions" that often "require or [benefit] from" public comment or AC advice; and Organizational Administrative Functions where no comment is sought (human resources matters, approval of minutes, appointment of board committee members and leaders, etc.).<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/consultation-clarification-24sep12-en.pdf ATRT Recommendation 6: Clarification of Consultation Models], September 24, 2012</ref> the board identified the current models for receiving inputs in the first two categories of decision making, and instructed the Board Governance Committee to seek further input from the community regarding how to improve or expand those models.<ref name="pcrec6" /> Notably, the BGC distinguished these engagement efforts from "formal advice" given under the Bylaws and each AC's procedures:

While more broadly addressing transparency in issue identification and decision making by the board, the recommendation spurred an examination of the board's engagement with the community, and the timing and evaluation of advice from the ACs.<ref name="pcrec6>[https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/community-input-and-advice-process-24-09-2012 Public Comment Proceeding - Community Input and Advice], September 24, 2012</ref> The board identified three primary decision making processes that it engages in: review and approval of policy development processes; "Organizational Administrative Functions" that often "require or [benefit] from" public comment or AC advice; and Organizational Administrative Functions where no comment is sought (human resources matters, approval of minutes, appointment of board committee members and leaders, etc.).<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/consultation-clarification-24sep12-en.pdf ATRT Recommendation 6: Clarification of Consultation Models], September 24, 2012</ref> the board identified the current models for receiving inputs in the first two categories of decision making, and instructed the Board Governance Committee to seek further input from the community regarding how to improve or expand those models.<ref name="pcrec6" /> Notably, the BGC distinguished these engagement efforts from "formal advice" given under the Bylaws and each AC's procedures:

<blockquote>ICANN’s Advisory Committees also have internal processes for provision of advice to the ICANN Board. However, there may be topics or issues for which the Board requests community input or advice that are not suitable or required to be addressed through PDPs and/or formal advice mechanisms.<br />

<blockquote>ICANN’s Advisory Committees also have internal processes for provision of advice to the ICANN Board. However, there may be topics or issues for which the Board requests community input or advice that are not suitable or required to be addressed through PDPs and/or formal advice mechanisms.<br />

There is no formal procedure in place whereby the ICANN Board can request this type of input or advice from the broader ICANN community. To date, the Board has made these requests through Board resolution or by letter, but neither process is sufficiently formal to ensure that the relevant SOs or ACs are fully aware of the request or address/provide the input or advice requested. This raises the question whether it would be beneficial to develop a more formalized process for requesting and developing community advice or input that does not require the implementation of a formal PDP and for which the public comment mechanism is not sufficient.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/input-advice-function-24sep12-en.pdf Community Input and Advice Function Paper], September 24, 2012 (PDF)</ref></blockquote>

There is no formal procedure in place whereby the ICANN Board can request this type of input or advice from the broader ICANN community. To date, the Board has made these requests through Board resolution or by letter, but neither process is sufficiently formal to ensure that the relevant SOs or ACs are fully aware of the request or address/provide the input or advice requested. This raises the question whether it would be beneficial to develop a more formalized process for requesting and developing community advice or input that does not require the implementation of a formal PDP and for which the public comment mechanism is not sufficient.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/input-advice-function-24sep12-en.pdf Community Input and Advice Function Paper], September 24, 2012 (PDF)</ref></blockquote>

==Procedure and Process==

==Procedure and Process==