Draft Recommendation 30
That the GNSO develop and implement a policy for the provision of administrative support for SGs and Cs; and that SGs and Cs annually review and evaluate the effectiveness of administrative support they receive.
|Working Party (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness):||CG - Accept with modification: I support Marika's modification.|
|Staff (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness):|
MK: Accept with modification. It should probably say 'that ICANN develop and implement' unless this recommendation is intended to change the current policy and support provided by ICANN to SG/Cs?
|Basis for Assessment:|
|Work in Progress:||In development (supported by SO/AC Engagement Team led by Rob Hoggarth)|
|Expected Completion Date for Work in Progress:|
Public Comments Received
Recommendation 30 (Continuous Development): That the GNSO develop and implement a policy for the provision of administrative support for SGs and Cs; and that SGs and Cs annually review and evaluate the effectiveness of administrative support they receive.
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group
(Support) The ISPCP viewed this requirement as urgent.
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
The BC supports this recommendation although we would also insist on transparent and cost-efficient funding and equal treatment of all SGs and Cs.
We support this initiative.
(Support) Until very recently the IPC had no administrative support from ICANN, and after two brief periods with staff members serving in secretariat roles, is once again without any such support. The support provided was a significant benefit and support to the IPC leadership and membership. We look forward to receiving it again. Based on our experience, a more stable and redundant system of Secretariat support must be implemented. The discouraging track record of ICANN’s failure to deliver on its commitments to provide reliable support strongly suggests that ICANN reconsider its consistent refusal to allocate funding to constituencies to procure their own administrative support services, subject to appropriate accounting and auditing safeguards.
I agree with this recommendation, however this should be a decision of the GNSO.
(Support) The ALAC fully supports this recommendation as it has first hand experience that good provision of administrative support enhances volunteer motivation.