Summary

  • On 31 August, ICANN’s Board Governance Committee compared Board Self-Evaluation Survey issues with the Board Efficiency Work Team’s work to identify matters that did not need separate committee review.
  • The committee agreed that Delegation of Authority should remain for its consideration, and tasked itself with continuing the discussion. The minutes do not record a change to delegation policy or a Board decision.

The assignment of a governance question can matter before any rule changes. In its 31 August minutes, ICANN’s Board Governance Committee (BGC) recorded a comparison between issues raised in the Board Self-Evaluation Survey and matters already being considered by the Board Efficiency Work Team (EWT). Staff also compared the survey with earlier self-evaluations. The stated purpose was to find issues that did not need separate BGC consideration.

The committee discussed grouping remaining survey issues into themes and identifying possible improvement plans. It then addressed “Delegation of Authority” and agreed that this issue should stay with the BGC rather than be treated as part of the EWT’s work. The action was limited: the BGC would continue discussing it at its next meeting. The minutes say the chair would bring the survey results back for further discussion at a future meeting.

That is an allocation of review, not a revision of ICANN’s delegation rules. The public record does not disclose the survey’s scores, the comments behind them, or the content of a proposed improvement plan. Nor does it identify an authority dispute, a specific delegation to change, or a Board resolution. Treating the discussion as a policy decision would turn a committee action into something the minutes do not say.

The sequence began earlier. In March, the BGC approved the EWT’s charter and membership. In July, after the work team presented efficiency recommendations, the BGC asked its chair and staff to identify self-evaluation themes or outliers that were not related to the team’s work. August’s comparison put that routing question into practice: overlapping issues could avoid a second review, while Delegation of Authority remained on the governance committee’s list.

The distinction is consequential as a design choice. Board efficiency work can reduce duplicated review, but survey issues still need an identifiable owner. Keeping a subject with the BGC preserves a forum for governance scrutiny; it does not guarantee that the committee will recommend a change or that the full Board will act. The test is whether the next discussion produces a clear disposition—continued review, a referral, or a reason to close the item—without implying that a private self-evaluation is public evidence.

Sources