Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Section 4.4(a) of ICANN’s Bylaws require that its structures, including the ccNSO, be reviewed on a five-year cycle.  According to the Bylaws, the goal of the review is to determine "(i) whether that organization, council or committee has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness and (iii) whether that organization, council or committee is accountable to its constituencies, stakeholder groups, organizations and other stakeholders."

This review is part of ICANN’s commitment to continuous improvement, accountability and transparency.  It uses mechanisms and measures to maintain public confidence in the viability, reliability and accountability of ICANN.

Based on direction from the Board, the current review comprises an examination of ccNSO organizational effectiveness in accordance with the ICANN-provided objectives and quantifiable criteria. The Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board (OEC) is responsible for the oversight of ICANN’s organizational reviews.

The scope includes, but is not limited to:

• An assessment of the implementation state of ccNSO's prior review;
• An assessment of whether ccNSO has a continuing purpose within the ICANN structure;
• An assessment of how effectively ccNSO fulfills its purpose and whether any change in structure or operations is needed to improve effectiveness; and
• An assessment of the extent to which ccNSO as a whole is accountable to the wider ICANN community.

More information about the scope of the review can be found in the RFP overview document here.

The review and its requirements will be managed in a clear and scheduled process, empowering the ccNSO and broader community to be a part of the solution and improvement efforts. A survey and interviews will provide the community with an opportunity to express their position on review elements.

The Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) of the ICANN Board is responsible for the review and oversight of policies relating to ICANN’s ongoing organizational review process, as mandated by Section 4.4(a) of ICANN’s Bylaws (Periodic Review of ICANN Structure and Operations).  For more information, see the Charter of the OEC.  In addition to providing oversight, the OEC confirms the Independent Examiner, accepts the final report and implementation plan and prepares recommendations for Board action. 

The Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) of the Board has requested that an ccNSO Review Working Party be assembled to act as a liaison between the ccNSO, the Independent Examiner and the OEC.  The Working Party will also provide input on review criteria and a community survey, coordinate interviews, and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations.  Once the final report is issued and the Board takes action on it, the ccNSO Review Working Party is expected to coordinate with the ccNSO to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities.

The membership of the ccNSO Review Working Party represents the diversity of the ccNSO community.  The activities of the ccNSO Review Working Party are conducted in an open and fully transparent manner.  Contact mssi-secretariat@icann.org for more information.  See activities of the ccNSO Review Working Party on their wiki.

While an Independent Examiner will perform the review, the ccNSO Review Working Party also has an important role: performing a self-assessment, providing direct input to the community survey and participating in interviews, and implementing improvements.

The selection of an Independent Examiner is done in accordance with the process originally outlined in Systematization of Organizational Reviews Processes and ICANN’s procurement policy.  The process has been adjusted to include continuous process improvements and lessons learned.  The selection involves Organizational Review and Procurement staff and the Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board (OEC).  A competitive bidding process was launched on 26 April 2018 with an open Request for Proposal for the Independent Review of the ccNSO.  Submitted proposals were carefully evaluated and the results and scores were presented for consideration and action by the OEC.

In connection with the open competitive bidding process used to select the independent examiner, the proposals were reviewed and evaluated for all data responsive to the RFP, not just the low bid.  Prices was one of many considerations.  Once all bids were evaluated, the Independent Examiner was selected as the most qualified consultant relative to, but not limited to, the following high-level selection criteria:

• Understanding of the assignment
  • Understanding of the assignment, timeline and expected deliverables including specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-limited (SMART) recommendations.
  • Recognition and understanding that assignment requires ability to work productively, flexibly, and effectively with volunteers and volunteer-based organizations. This includes proactively balancing time zones to ensure appropriate input from a wide range of stakeholders.
• Knowledge and expertise
  • Demonstrated understanding of the ccNSO’s role within the ICANN structure and how it coordinates with other ICANN Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, and stakeholders.
  • Demonstrated experience in conducting broadly similar examinations of a large, volunteer-based organization with a multistakeholder structure.
  • Demonstrated experience in working with volunteer-based organizations and demonstrated sensitivity and consideration of volunteer time.
  • Demonstrated understanding of non-for-profit or non-governmental organizations.
  • Basic knowledge of ICANN.
  • Geographic and cultural diversity, multilingualism, gender balance and demonstrated experience of living and/or working in different cultural settings
  • Suitability of proposed CVs
• Proposed methodology
  • Work organization, project management approach, timelines (including flexibility subject to community needs).
  • Clarity of weight expected to be assigned to each method outlined in section 2.4 of this document.
  • Suitability of tools and methods of work.
  • Clarity of deliverables.
  • Suitability for engaging volunteers within volunteer-based organizations.
• Flexibility
• Reference checks
• Financial value
• Independence and impartiality including no conflict of interest