Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.
Submissions for this Proceeding
Continuous Improvement Program Framework
View this Proceeding
My Submissions
Search Public Comment Submissions For This Proceeding
To search for keywords within Public Comment submissions documents or pages, type in the keyword and press Enter after each selection.
Submission Summary:
The ALAC/At-Large Community agrees that the Continuous Improvement Program Framework (CIPF) is fit for purpose. It supports the CIPF utilizing a Principles, Criteria, Indicator Approach, and agrees with the five principles based on the current organizations review objectives described in the ICANN Bylaws. The ALAC/At-Large also agrees with the plan for the next steps to carry the CIP out in two, 3-year assessment periods. The ALAC/At-Larg...
Submission Summary:
We congratulate the Continuous Improvement Program Community Coordination Group (CIP-CCG) for the excellent work of coming up with a core framework for a community as diverse as the one we find at ICANN. At the same time, we believe there are some areas that require further clarification as we've noted in the document.
Submission Summary:
The ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the Continuous Program Framework (hereinafter “Framework”) developed by the Continuous Improvement Program Community Coordination Group (CIP-CCG) and published for public comment on 21 November 2024. GAC members have reviewed the proposed Framework and provide general comments regarding the principles, community commitments and next steps that have ...
Submission Summary:
The Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) welcomes the opportunity to provide a comment on the Continuous Improvement Program Framework. The development of this Framework was a significant undertaking by the Continuous Improvement Program Community Coordination Group (CIP-CCG). Ongoing reviews and updates are a necessary aspect of ensuring that the work of the ICANN Community can continue in an efficient and effective manner.
The RrSG beli...
Submission Summary:
The ccNSO supports:
- The proposed definition of continuous improvement.
- The principles in general, given their flexible nature.
- The design criteria for a general approach or framework that can be applied across an by the various groups.
Comments:
- There is a discrepancy between the core elements of the definition and the continuing focus on the goals of the organizational reviews.
- The proposed cycle ...
Submission Summary:
The Business Constituency (BC) supports the transition to a community-led program, emphasizing its alignment with ICANN’s mission and core values. However, we recommend improvements, including clearer metrics for evaluation, stronger transparency and accountability measures, and safeguards for integrity.
We also express concerns about the proposed 2, 3-year assessment periods, suggesting more flexible timelines to maintain momentum and ...
Submission Summary:
The RySG supports the Continuous Improvement Program Framework as drafted. The RySG is supportive of the five principles included in the Framework, but questions whether it is appropriate to evaluate the structures on their external accountability to the ICANN community. The RySG agrees with the proposed next steps to carry out the CIP in two, 3-year assessment periods.
Submission Summary:
APRALO is pleased to submit our input and recommendations to the Continuous Improvement Program (CIP) Framework.
Input:
Support for the Framework: We endorse the CIP Framework as it offers a robust alternative to Independent Examiner-led reviews by fostering community-wide stakeholder participation. The framework's flexibility is a key consideration for our support - in particular, throu...
Submission Summary:
The Continous Improvement Program is at high risk of failing dramatically the more it is able to call success. The way it is structured and run leads to more bureaucracy, more entrenched positions, more deadlock. ICANN needs to radically review itself from the edge inwards as much as or more than top down and staff-outwards. Independent reviewers not necessarily vetted by SOs and ACs need to be involved with a critical capacity for their recom...
Submission Summary:
This submission strongly supports the proposed Continuous Improvement Program (CIP) Framework, which aims to transform ICANN’s Organizational Reviews into a community-led and adaptive process. The Principles, Criteria, and Indicators (PCI) model is commended for effectively balancing consistency and flexibility. This approach allows each Supporting Organization (SO), Advisory Committee (AC), and the Nominating Committee (NomCom) to customize t...
Submission Summary:
Resistance to Change
One of the most significant challenges in implementing the CIP could be resistance to change from various stakeholders within ICANN structures5 Employees and volunteers may be hesitant to adopt new processes or...