Draft Recommendation 29

That new members of WGs and newcomers at ICANN meetings be surveyed to determine how well their input is solicited and accepted by the community, and that the results be published and considered by the GNSO Council at its next meeting..

Working Party (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness): CG - Accept with modification: This recommendation seems feasible for WGs but not so much for ICANN meetings.
Staff (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness):
  • Accept As-Is
  • Accept With modification
  • Reject


MK: Accept with modification. It is not clear whether the new members and newcomers at an ICANN meeting are expected to be covered in the same survey or whether these are two different surveys. It might make more sense to address specific new members of WGs questions as part of the self-assessment survey which already exists?

Basis for Assessment: 
Work in Progress:GNSO ICANN Meeting Survey which is conducted at the end of every ICANN meeting - can be expanded to include additional topics and would need to consider ways to increase responses.
Expected Completion Date for Work in Progress: 

Public Comments Received

Comment #

Submitted By



Recommendation 29 (Continuous Development): That new members of WGs and newcomers at ICANN meetings be surveyed to determine how well their input is solicited and accepted by the community, and that the results be published and considered by the GNSO Council at its next meeting.


Paul Diaz

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group

(Support) This recommendation is possibly more suited to working group participation than to ICANN meetings. How would this be accomplished with newcomers at ICANN meetings? Surveys could be used but they are sometimes overused and hence can be ineffective. One different idea would be to use other mechanisms to obtain feedback from new members to WGs and newcomers at ICANN meetings such as focus groups.


Osvaldo Novoa


(It Depends) Support is offered for this approach within WGs but is considered impractical to undertake such a task at all ICANN meetings. Participation within a WG facilitates engagement, simply attending an ICANN meeting may not always result in the same level of opportunity. Soliciting and accepting input places responsibilities on both parties. Without prior knowledge of newcomers or adequate opportunity to engage with them during what are always very busy ICANN meetings, the results gathered could be at best meaningless, at worse damaging to the reputation of the organization. This is simply the wrong metric.


Will Hudson


If adopted would add greater accountability to the policy development process, increase metrics­driven policy decisions, and increase the efficacy of the process by leveraging the services of professional moderators, especially in circumstances where working group members may be conflicted. Additionally, we believe it is crucial that the GAC be involved earlier in the process.


Laura Covington, J. Scott Evans, Marie Pattullo

Business Constituency

The BC supports this recommendation.


Stephanie Perrin


We think this is unworkable.  How is a newcomer going to respond to demands for feedback and evaluation in this way?  How is the community going to respond?  I think we should find other, more neutral ways to monitor how well newcomers are being accepted into the community, possibly by assigning coaches who check back periodically to see how integration is getting along.


Greg Shatan


(Support) It may be necessary to conduct such a survey on more than one occasion, or to consider carefully the most appropriate time to carry it out. In the case of a WG, a survey of the perceptions of a new member may be better conducted at the end of the working group’s task rather than early on. Similarly, surveying a newcomer after only one meeting may not elicit the most complete feedback since a newcomer may be justifiably reluctant to express their views within the SG or C at their first meeting, whilst they are still finding their feet. Thus, surveying them after they have attended a few meetings over the space of 3-6 months is likely to be more informative.


Amr Elsadr


I agree with this recommendation.


Olivier Crepin-Leblond


(Support) This would be a very significant step forward. At the moment, anecdotal evidence shows that newcomers find various levels of acceptance. It would indeed be good to formalize the feedback loop.

  • No labels