ICANN Resolutions » Establishing a Set of KPIs for Board Performance and Improvement Efforts (ATRT2 Rec. 1, 2 & 3)
Important note: The Board Resolutions are as reported in the Board Meeting Transcripts, Minutes & Resolutions portion of ICANN's website. Only the words contained in the Resolutions themselves represent the official acts of the Board. The explanatory text provided through this database (including the summary, implementation actions, identification of related resolutions, and additional information) is an interpretation or an explanation that has no official authority and does not represent the purpose behind the Board actions, nor does any explanations or interpretations modify or override the Resolutions themselves. Resolutions can only be modified through further act of the ICANN Board.
Establishing a Set of KPIs for Board Performance and Improvement Efforts
Whereas, on 26 June 2014, the ICANN Board accepted the recommendations of the Final Report of the Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT2) published on 31 December 2013.
Whereas, ATRT2 Recommendation 1 stated "The Board should develop objective measures for determining the quality of ICANN Board members and the success of Board improvement efforts, and analyze those findings over time."
Whereas, ATRT2 Recommendation 2 stated "The Board should develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the Board's functioning and improvement efforts, and publish the materials used for training to gauge levels of improvement."
Whereas, ATRT2 Recommendation 3 stated "The Board should conduct qualitative/quantitative studies to determine how the qualifications of Board candidate pools change over time and should regularly assess Directors' compensation levels against prevailing standards."
Whereas, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) considered ATRT2 Recommendations and provided the Board with recommendations on implementation, including among other things the development of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to help measure the Board's function and improvement efforts.
Whereas, the Board recognizes the importance of measuring how well the Board functions, including its logistical aspects, and of measuring the Board's improvement efforts.
Whereas, the Board is engaged, through the BGC, in an ongoing process to review the Board's working practices and develop comprehensive and holistic KPIs and other relevant metrics with which the Board can measure its effectiveness and improvement over time.
Whereas, the BGC has recommended that the Board accept a first set of KPIs specifically in response to the ATRT2 recommendations, with the understanding that additional and more comprehensive KPIs will continue being developed and modified over time as part of the BGC and the Board's standard operating procedures and activities.
Resolved (2016.02.03.17), the Board approves the KPIs set forth in Attachment 1 to the Reference Materials, and agrees with the BGC that the Board should continue to develop of more comprehensive, richer set of KPIs and other relevant metrics with which the Board can measure its effectiveness and improvement over time.
Resolved (2016.02.03.18), with respect to the portion of ATRT2 Recommendation 3 recommending that the Board "conduct qualitative/quantitative studies to determine how the qualifications of Board candidate pools change over time", the Board will undertake to commence discussions with the Nominating Committee and electing bodies that are responsible for the selection of Directors and that have access to the qualifications of candidate pools.
The implementation of recommendations [PDF, 3.46 MB] from the Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT2) began in June 2014, shortly after the Board accepted the recommendations. The initial Implementation Plan scheduled the completion of Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 in June 2015, which was later revised to February 2016, to allow Board Governance Committee (BGC) to further discuss the overall process, including the development of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to help measure the efforts called for in ATRT2 Recommendations 1, 2 and 3.
The BCG is working with the Board to review comprehensively the Board's performance and improvement efforts and to develop relevant and substantive KPIs to measure both. The first set of KPIs (see Attachment A to the Reference Materials) that the Board has approved today was developed directly in response to the ATRT2 recommendations. However, the Board is dedicated to pursuing the development of even more meaningful KPIs as an ongoing effort to help improve the metrics by which the Board measures its performance overtime. Accordingly, the Board now considers this effort as part of its ongoing activities to help enhance its performance, which the BGC is tasked with in Section I.A of its charter (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/charter-06-2012-02-25-en).
With respect to ATRT 2 Recommendation 1, the Board has previously stated that it is difficult to determine the quality of individual Board members as this terminology could be interpreted in many different ways. In accepting this recommendation, the Board agreed to measure its improvement efforts (training programs) over time, which is what the first approved KPIs address.
With respect to ATRT 2 Recommendation 2, which is partly redundant to Recommendation 1, the proposed first KPIs measure the Board's current logistical functioning.
With respect to ATRT 2 Recommendation 3, the Board has previously indicated that it does not have access to the information related to the Board candidate pools, and in particular as it relates to the Nominating Committee candidates, that would allow for assessment or measurement by the Board of Board candidate qualifications. Accordingly, the Board will undertake to commence discussions with the Nominating Committee and the electing bodies that are responsible for the selection of Directors and that have access to the qualifications of candidate pools.
Adopting this initial set of KPIs will have no direct fiscal impact on ICANN or the community that is not already budgeted, and will not have an impact of the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system.
This is an Organization Administrative Function that does not require public comment.