Organizational Reviews

What are the Organizations that are Reviewed?

ICANN follows a multistakeholder model in which individuals, non-commercial stakeholder groups, industry, and governments play important roles in its community-based, consensus-driven, policy-making approach.

While the ICANN Board of Directors has the ultimate authority to approve or reject policy recommendations, Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) provide valuable input and expertise to the policy-making process. Specifically, the SOs are responsible for developing and making policy recommendations to the Board. Similarly, the ACs advise the ICANN Board and, in certain cases, can raise issues for policy development.

Supporting Organizations (SOs)

ICANN has three Supporting Organizations that develop and recommend policies concerning the Internet’s technical management within their areas of expertise. They are the Address Supporting Organization (ASO), the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO).

Advisory Committees (ACs)

ICANN has four Advisory Committees that serve as formal advisory bodies to the ICANN Board. They are made up of representatives from the Internet community to advise on a particular issue or policy area. ICANN Bylaws mandate four committees: At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC), Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC).

Other Groups

Additionally, there are other relevant groups involved in ICANN’s governance model including:

• Nominating Committee
• Technical Liaison Group
• Board of Directors

What are the Organizational Reviews?

ICANN’s ongoing commitment to its own evolution and improvement has been incorporated into its Bylaws. In particular, the Article IV, Section 4 of the Bylaws require the periodic review of relevant ICANN organizations and committees including each of the Supporting Organizations (SOs), each of the Advisory Committees (ACs), and the Nominating Committee. The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) is excluded from this periodic review requirement and instead shall provide its own review mechanisms. Additionally, although not required by ICANN Bylaws or other agreements, in the interest of greater accountability and transparency, ICANN has opted to perform reviews of the Nominating Committee (NomCom), Board of Directors, and the Technical Liaison Group (TLG).

While ICANN’s Board is ultimately responsible for initiating these reviews and for establishing the criteria and standards under which they shall occur, the reviews are performed by an entity independent of the organization or committee under review. The purpose of these reviews is twofold. The reviews are meant to determine (i) whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and if so (ii) whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness.

The Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board (OEC), previously known as the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) is responsible for the following (See information about this Committee of the Board and Committee’s Charter):

1. The review and oversight of all organizational reviews mandated by Article IV, Section 4 of ICANN’s Bylaws or any replacement or revisions to that Section of the Bylaws (Reviews), which are aimed at enhancing ICANN’s overall effectiveness, and achieving specific organizational objectives, structural relevance and effectiveness.
2. The review and oversight of policies, processes, and procedures relating to the Reviews.
3. The development and maintenance of a Review Framework, which is subject to Board approval, that encapsulates the policies, processes and procedures applicable to the conduct of the Reviews.  Review Polices, Procedures and Guidelines documentation is being developed as part of the Review Framework to clarify and make the Review process more transparent for the ICANN community.

What are all those dates in the above table?

The current process of conducting Organizational Reviews is outlined here.   Historical information is available here. 

Timing of Organizational Reviews

The organizational reviews follow a five-year cycle. Thus, each organization is scheduled to be reviewed every five years. On 28 July 2015, the Board adopted the following schedule for the conduct of upcoming Bylaws mandated Organizational Reviews on or about the following dates: the second At-Large Review—April 2016; the second review of the Nominating Committee—February 2017; the second review of the Root Server System Advisory Committee – April 2017; and the second review of Security & Stability Advisory Committee—June 2017. See Board Resolution for further details. 

Review Process

The chart below outlines phases and typical actions and milestones applicable to an Organizational Review.  Actual actions and durations vary for each review, as can be seen from the reviews that have been concluded.  While the phases of future reviews are expected to be consistent with this outline, specific actions, milestones and durations may vary based on the unique aspects of each review.  Additionally, the outcomes of the “Proposed Schedule and Process/Operational Improvements for AoC and Organizational Reviews”, which was posted for Public Comment may impact aspects of future reviews.

Please provide your feedback here.