Agenda 22 June 2009 ACSO

Draft of Topic - Not yet approved

The topic concerns the roles and responsibilities of volunteers within
the organization, and their relationship to Policy staff and to the
Board. This topic is to be explored within the context of ICANN
practice and its contribution to transparency and accountability.
Following the mid term review of the JPA that showed continuing issues
with institutional confidence and with another review being underway at
the moment, it is now a good time for the ACSO organizations to join
together and discuss the practical issues involved in the
improvements of institutional confidence from each of their distinctive
organizational viewpoints.

Much thought and work has been done, especially by the PSC and the GAC,
in the high level description of principles related to institutional
confidence. Much work is also being done to review ICANN's committees
and organizations and to restructure/reorganize them for increased
transparency, accountability and responsiveness. There has also been a
growth in the Policy staff and in their role in creating ICANN policy.
As the reviews and restructuring continues and as the review on the
upcoming expiration of the Joint Profect Agreement (JPA) is is upcoming,
Sydney provides a unique opportunity to take at look at some of the
practical aspects of ICANN's continuing internal effort to improve
institution confidence.

Based on comments received during the review of the Mexico City ACSO
sessions, it has been decided to hold one ACSO meeting and to focus on a
single topic of community wide interest. The topic for this meeting
will be:

Advisory Committees, Supporting Organizations, Policy Staff and the
Board: Roles, responsibilities, process and communications.

Some of the specific questions, among others, that will be explored
include:

 - The respective roles and responsibilities of the Supporting
Organizations, Advisory Committees and Policy staff in creating ICANN
policy recommendations. What should these roles be? What is the right
balance between volunteer activity and policy staff activity? Is the
current balance correct or should it be altered? Does the current
balance lead to volunteer exhaustion? Would shifting the balance
diminish the degree of private bottom-up policy making?

 - The role of Policy staff as an intermediary between Support
Organizations and Board. Should all communications between the SOs be
moderated by the Policy staff? Should there be direct communication
between SO representatives/liaisons and the Board.

 - The responsibility of the Board to respond to all Advisory Committee
questions and recommendations. Should all ACs have the same rights in
terms of recommendations and response by the Board to their issues?

 - The role of communications transparency in institutional confidence.
To what extent do staff communications to the Board need to be
confidential? Should communications regarding AC or SO activities be
confidential? Which other communications need to remain confidential?
What would be the effect of making most communications between staff and
the Board open to community review?