Draft Recommendation 1
|Working Party (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness):||CG - Accept with modification: Metrics should identify how WG participants are impacted by the issues related to specific WGs and specific areas of expertise they bring to the table correlated to geographic, gender and cultural factors. Rational: 1) Just measuring whether or not outreach results in new participants doesn't have much value unless we know how the new participants may be impacted by any policies under consideration; 2) I will not be possible to measure the effectiveness of outreach efforts in improving diversity if we do not collect the applicable diversity characteristics of new participants.|
|Staff (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness):|
MK: Accept as is.
|Basis for Assessment:|
|Work in Progress:||CROPP; Community Special Budget Requests; WG online sign-up tool|
|Expected Completion Date for Work in Progress:||Ongoing for next FY|
Public Comments Received
Recommendation 1 (Participation and Representation): Develop and monitor metrics to evaluate the ongoing effectiveness of current outreach strategies and pilot programmes with regard to GNSO Working Groups (WGs) (as noted in the WG participation recommendations under section 5.4.5)
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group
(Support) It is important that the metrics identify how WG participants are impacted by the issues related to specific WGs and specific areas of expertise they bring to the table correlated to geographic, gender and cultural factors.
(Support) Whilst the ISPCP would agree that WGs exist and do indeed create policy they fully support the remark that ‘openness has not resulted in effective involvement of a broad section of the community’. That said it must be recognized that not all WGs require full participation of all GNSO stakeholders. As part of the process the results of the WGs are open to public comment at various phases, that provides a safeguard for those parts of the community who may not be directly impacted by certain policy development activities and elect to focus their resources on target areas that are of particular importance to them. The ISPCP does not support the idea that all Constituencies need to engage in all WG’s, including silent observers, this would simply add to the burn-out that the volunteer community feels. By allowing volunteers and the Constituencies the ability to choose which Working Group affect their mission those Constituencies are empowered to prioritize their own effort and workload. It’s important that the development of metrics takes account of such issues and doesn’t simply add the numbers and make sweeping assumptions. Any metrics developed to evaluate outreach shold be developed hand-in-glove with the objectives for that outreach, so that the community is measuring the correct metrics. As pointed out within the ATRT2 GNSO PDP Evaluation Study Final Report (2013), some GNSO PDPs focus on niche topics, often of a technical nature. The ISPCP also disagrees with Westlake that the BCG1 Recommendation has been met (Working Groups should become the foundation for consensus policy work within the GNSO). Whilst it can be argued that WG’s have provided that foundation, the ISPCP believe the spirit of that original proposal went further, implying that Council should simply ‘manage the policy process’. That is still not the case. The GNSO Council often appears to be the arbiter of the output from WGs and is far to ‘hands on’ in some cases, which undermines the work and status of WGs.
(It Depends) The IPC supports monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of current outreach strategies, with the caveat that financial and labor resources dedicated to such monitoring do not detract from the underlying outreach they are meant to study. Notably, in its own outreach activities, the IPC strives to fund attendance for new participants at ICANN meetings, and strongly disfavors inventing new international meetings for long-standing community participants to attend. To this end, relevant metrics should closely examine outreach initiatives in the context of whether they result in new participants at ICANN meetings, as well as new participation in Working Groups. Our support may also depend upon the new meeting structures and whether these will facilitate or impede participation and representation.
Refine this slightly by clarifying (1) the purposes of some of the outreach mechanisms mentioned in the report, and (2) to not limit the recommendation to participation in GNSO working groups. The ICANN Fellowship program could potentially benefit from some form of introduction to or overview of the GNSO’s PDP. It may be helpful when developing and monitoring metrics to evaluate the ongoing effectiveness of outreach strategies, to not limit them to increased participation in GNSO WGs, but overall engagement to the GNSO PDP.
(Support) The ALAC supports this recommendation. Many outreach programs exist at ICANN but are not necessarily aimed at enhancing participation in policy development. At present it is not known to what extent current outreach programs succeed at bringing more volunteers to policy development.