Bruce — thank you for elaborating on the board’s general comment about bringing AoC reviews into the bylaws (Rec 9). Your email helped us understand specific areas where you want to leave more decisions to the board and to the AC/SO chairs. I have offered response in-line with your comments (see red text below), based upon my notes from multiple CCWG discussions of this topic over the last 12 months. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 3:19 PM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN Board comments on recommendation 9 Board Comment - Recommendation 9: As noted in its comments on the third draft proposal, the Board supports the incorporation of the AOC reviews into the Bylaws, while noting the importance of maintaining operational standards for reviews outside of the Bylaws. While the Board agrees that operational standards should be in alignment with the provisions of the Bylaws, the Board views operational standards as a more suitable place to address multiple review-related operational items that do not belong in the Bylaws. There are a few specific areas that the Board is flagging in relation to the operational standards - a) The Board is concerned about potential constrains that may limit flexibility and effectiveness in the operational standards and that certain CCWG-Accountability recommendations may not be aligned with best practices or industry standards, including: o Fixed numbers of total review team members, as well as a fixed allocation among SO/ACs, without consideration of specific issues and required expertise for a given review. Reply: This regards para 54 in Annex 9, repeated here for convenience: "Review Teams are established to include both a fixed number of members and an open number of participants. Each SO and AC participating in the review may suggest up to seven prospective members for the Review Team. The group of chairs of the participating SOs and ACs will select a group of up to 21 Review Team members, balanced for diversity and skills, allocating at least three members from each participating SO and AC that suggests threeor more prospective members. In addition, the ICANN Board may designate one Director as a member of the Review Team." CCWG proposed that "chairs of participating SOs and ACs will select a group of up to 21 Review Team members.” The phrase is “up to 21”, so we are not actually proposing a fixed number of review team members. (We do acknowledge the need to remove “fixed number of members” from the introductory sentence.) We are proposing a maximum of 21 members, based on community experience with previous reviews and data provided by staff on the number of members proposed by the community. We proposed 21 in order to accommodate each of the 7 AC/SOs having up to 3 members. We anticipate that some ACs and SOs will not offer 3 names, and have given the AC/SO chairs flexibility to give those member slots to an AC/SO that had higher interest and offered more than 3 candidates (per a comment from GNSO CSG). o Unlimited number of participants, in addition to the appointed review team members, potentially affecting the team's productivity. Reply: This regards para 54 in Annex 9, where CCWG proposed an”open number of participants”. Levels of community interest and the principle of transparency argue for that meetings, calls, and email lists for cross-community working groups and review teams be open to the community. We note that chair(s) of the Review Team could restrict posting privileges and consensus calls to appointed members of the Review Team, and thereby manage the team’s productivity. CCWG proposed this to ensure that Review Teams work in a predictable method that is consistent with cross community working groups in the ICANN context. o Exact trigger points for the commencement of reviews without taking into account the Community bandwidth, or the state of pending implementation activities. Reply: This regards a paragraph on each of the 4 AoC reviews “shall be convened no less frequently than every five years, measured from the date the previous review was convened.” CCWG took into account community bandwidth concerns when we proposed that AoC reviews occur every 5 years — instead of the 3 year interval required in the AoC. We phrased the proposal to give flexibility for reviews to occur sooner than 5 year intervals. But we felt strongly that reviews need an interval requirement in order to ensure the reviews are not deferred indefinitely. b) To accommodate differing needs of reviews, the Board recommends leaving the number of review team members to the selectors of a specific review team, as to prescribing a specific formula for composition. This could leave to the selectors the flexibility, for example, to include more members from a specific SO or AC that is more impacted by a specific review, without hardcoding numbers into the Bylaws that might need to be changed later. Reply: We are proposing a maximum of 21 members, based on community experience with previous reviews and data provided by staff on the number of members proposed by the community. We proposed 21 in order to accommodate each of the 7 AC/SOs having up to 3 members. We anticipate that some ACs and SOs will not offer 3 names, and have given the AC/SO chairs flexibility to give those member slots to an AC/SO that had higher interest and offered more than 3 candidates (per a comment from GNSO CSG). . c) The Board is concerned with the CCWG-Accountability's recommendations on determinations of how consensus is applied. Reply: This comment regards para 57: "If consensus cannot be reached among the participants, consensus will be sought among the members. In the event a consensus cannot be found among the members, a majority vote of the members may be taken. " CCWG proposed this text to ensure that Review Teams work in a predictable method that is consistent with cross community working groups in the ICANN context. Imposing Bylaws requirements on allowing participants and observers, or requiring consensus calls are other examples where trying to hardcode specific requirements for reviews now might actually develop reviews that are less efficient, more resource intensive, and detract from the responsibilities of the review teams. The Board notes that the ICANN community would benefit from a review schedule that would take into consideration community bandwidth and ICANN resources in developing a staggered or phased review schedule. These factors should determine what a workable number of concurrent reviews would be and ensure that no more than that number of reviews are scheduled at the same time. Finally, the Board would like to highlight the work that has been underway within ICANN towards improving review effectiveness so that the CCWG and the community may factor this work in the development of operational standards. Work has been underway on the development of Operational Standards since last year, originating from ATRT2 recommendation 11 to improve effectiveness of Reviews together with Board Resolution 2015.07.28.14. In July 2015, after factoring public comments, the Board endorsed the proposed process and operational improvements designed to simplify and increase the effectiveness of Reviews. The Organizational Effectiveness Board Committee is currently working to finalize Policies, Procedures and Guidelines for the Organizational Reviews mandated by the Bylaws. Reply: We note that the drafting being done by the board is for Organizational reviews — not the AoC reviews. Still, CCWG is open to consider the board’s specific operational improvements as part of the implementation of CCWG’s proposal. If possible, could you circulate to CCWG the current draft of these policies, procedures, and guidelines? Regards, Bruce Tonkin ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG