Effectiveness of GAC Advice BGRI-WG ICANN 56 Meeting – Helsinki

Background

BGRI-WG The Board-GAC Recommendations Implementation Working Group (BGRI-WG): Created => implement GAC-related recommendations of ATRT1 Extended => implement GAC-related recommendations of ATRT2 Re-convened => look into Effectiveness of GAC advice

GAC Advice Effectiveness Review In Dublin the GAC raised the need to periodically review whether and how effective the Board has taken GAC advice into account ACIG analyzed the issue and prepared a Review Report Board referred the issue to the BGRI-WG to analyze and develop recommendations

Effectiveness of gac advice Review – ACIG Report

Key Findings In some cases it is extremely difficult to determine: Whether (or not) ICANN Board has accepted GAC Advice, Where there is clear evidence that advice has been accepted, to what degree it has been implemented, and Whether or not the GAC feel the implementation adequately meets GAC’s original intent

Work Plan Work Activity Timeframe 1.   Work Activity Timeframe 1. Confirm, or fine tune, current definition of what constitutes GAC advice. At Helsinki 2. Agree on structure/elements of GAC advice: templates for communique/letters. 3. Investigate the need for post-communique Board-GAC exchange to clarify any areas of uncertainty in the Communique. 4. Review and consolidate logging and tracking mechanisms into a single, transparent, easy to access and easy to manage portal. In progress 5. Review the new platform features to ensure the ability to archive, track, retrieve, search and categorize GAC advice is satisfactory. By Hyderabad 6. Review the existing GAC records and see if the missing detail can be completed. 7. Document the overall process in a cross functional flow chart, illustrating checkpoints, roles and responsibilities. Post Hyderabad 8. Agree on how to institutionalize all agreed elements. 9. Investigate the need to review the GAC Operating Principles in light of the BGRI outcomes.

Recommendation #1 “Review and make clear to all parties what forms of communication from the GAC comprise “GAC Advice”” Discussion: Common understanding / Approach Implementation element(s) / Deliverable(s) Timeframe / Responsibilities Documentation / Institutionalization

Recommendation #2 “Decide and describe the intended public policy outcome for each piece of GAC Advice and include this in the statement of Advice itself.” Discussion: Common understanding / Approach Implementation element(s) / Deliverable(s) Timeframe / Responsibilities Documentation / Institutionalization

Recommendation #3 “Within each piece of Advice, articulate the separate implementable elements:” Discussion: Common understanding / Approach Implementation element(s) / Deliverable(s) Timeframe / Responsibilities Documentation / Institutionalization

Recommendation #4 “Improve the existing GAC Advice Register and remove the duplication of current material.” Discussion: Common understanding / Approach Implementation element(s) / Deliverable(s) Timeframe / Responsibilities Documentation / Institutionalization

Recommendation #5 “Roles and Responsibilities with regard to maintaining the Register of Advice need to be made explicit and clear either via the GAC Operating Principles or via a service performance contract. Currently no party has explicit responsibility to maintain these key records.” Discussion: Common understanding / Approach Implementation element(s) / Deliverable(s) Timeframe / Responsibilities Documentation / Institutionalization

Recommendation #6 “The BGRI should: Consider the recommendations in this paper and provide its views to the Board and the GAC on appropriate next steps; and Review the arrangements for the provision of “GAC Advice” agreed during the ATRT1 process and provide their views of what constitutes GAC Advice to both the Board and the GAC.” Discussion: Common understanding / Approach Implementation element(s) / Deliverable(s) Timeframe / Responsibilities Documentation / Institutionalization

The way forward

Work Plan Work Activity Timeframe 1.   Work Activity Timeframe 1. Confirm, or fine tune, current definition of what constitutes GAC advice. At Helsinki 2. Agree on structure/elements of GAC advice: templates for communique/letters. 3. Investigate the need for post-communique Board-GAC exchange to clarify any areas of uncertainty in the Communique. 4. Review and consolidate logging and tracking mechanisms into a single, transparent, easy to access and easy to manage portal. In progress 5. Review the new platform features to ensure the ability to archive, track, retrieve, search and categorize GAC advice is satisfactory. By Hyderabad 6. Review the existing GAC records and see if the missing detail can be completed. 7. Document the overall process in a cross functional flow chart, illustrating checkpoints, roles and responsibilities. Post Hyderabad 8. Agree on how to institutionalize all agreed elements. 9. Investigate the need to review the GAC Operating Principles in light of the BGRI outcomes.

Thank You