Executive Summary to GNSO Council

GNSO Review Working Party
Feasibility Assessment and Prioritization of Recommendations Provided by the Independent Examiner

Executive Summary

Building on its extensive work during the entire course of the review of the GNSO, which commenced in March 2014, the GNSO Review Working Party has worked diligently to discuss, dissect and evaluate the 36 recommendations included in the Final Report issued by the independent examiner in September 2015.  Through this process, we carefully considered each of the recommendations in detail and evaluated them based upon several criteria:

• ease or difficulty of implementation,
• cost of implementation,
• whether it is aligned with the strategic plan of the GNSO,
• whether it impacts existing or other work;
• whether the Working Party required additional information, and,
• whether the recommendation was a low, medium or high priority. 

We categorized each of the recommendations in two parts.  Part One addressed whether we agreed (13 recommendations), did not agree (3 recommendations), agreed with modifications (6 recommendations) or work was already underway in the GNSO (14 recommendations).  Part Two prioritized the recommendations as high, medium or low in terms of the impact it could have on the GNSO relative to other factors.  The Stats sheet provides a summary of the total recommendations under this two part approach.

We believe this is the most effective way to present our careful review of all 36 recommendations in a manner that the Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board (OEC) can use to form its opinion on which recommendations to move into implementation.  This approach is reflective of lessons learned from past reviews and important process improvements, such as prioritizing recommendations and considering how outcome and impact resulting from implemented recommendations will be measured and evaluated in the future. The detailed report is provided on the attached spreadsheet.  

How to Read the Spreadsheet

We have organized the spreadsheet to coincide with our two part approach.  The recommendations have been color coded for ease of reference.

Green:  we agreed with the recommendation.

Orange:  work is already underway regarding this recommendations.

Yellow:  we agreed with some part of it or the intent, but have proposed a modified version of the recommendation (the modified language is listed next to the original.)

Red:  we do not agree and recommend it not be implemented. 

The spreadsheet is sorted by priorit+A2y (column E) so you will see the recommendations we believe to be a high priority first, medium in the second tier and low or do not implement toward the bottom.  The recommendations are further sorted by the score assessed by the Working Party (column F) after reviewing their feedback on the criteria noted above.  The score was determined by assigning a score of "1" to each category that met the criteria (easy to implement, low cost, alignment with strategic plan, no impact on other work or groups, no additional information needed, and high priority).  The score was then tallied.  The results ranged from 1 to 6 (for example, 6 met the most critiera and should be given higher priority during the implementation phase). Finally, the recommendations are sorted numerically if the ranking (high/med/low/do not implement and score) is the same.

The spreadsheet provides our comments, as well as our indication of how we graded the recommendation on the criteria outlined above.

We hope this level of detail and organizational structure will help the GNSO Council and the OEC to understand how we arrived at our recommendations and provide an easy way to comment or propose any adjustments on the 36 recommendations provided during the independent review.  

What We Propose As Next Steps

Once approved by GNSO Council, we propose submitting to the OEC as presented, along with suggested ways to measure performance of the recommendations (which is currently in drafting). We propose that the OEC move forward with those recommendations color coded green or yellow (incorporating our proposed revisions) and reinforce those in orange within existing work. We propose they do not proceed with those color coded red as do not implement. We also propose that the Working Party continue to work with the OEC to develop implementation plans and more detailed benchmarks of performance as a liaison with the GNSO for the process.

Additionally, throughout this process, members of the community have expressed concerns over the selection of the independent examiner, the scope of the independent review and the methodology used. While these factors were outside the scope of our work, we have recognized these concerns, and, up to this point, focused on evaluating the recommendations as presented. The OEC has indicated to us, as a liaison to the GNSO regarding the Independent Review, that if additional recommendations which were not observed or noted by the independent examiner are desired by the GNSO, that we may use this opportunity to provide such additional feedback. We plan to complete an assessment of the Review process, including performance of the Independent Examiner, effectiveness of the Working Party model, efficiency of the review process and staff facilitation. The results of this assessment and resulting recommendations will be shared with the OEC to inspire further process improvements.

At the start of the Review, we had contemplated conducting a GNSO Self-Review as part of this process. At this juncture, we seek direction from Council. Specifically, should the GNSO Review Working Party conduct a self-review and supplement the independent examiner’s recommendations or should its work conclude with the presentation of this report and allow a follow-on group to form to work toward implementation?

Background Information

The objective of the GNSO Review^[1] is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation from the broader community are important components of this review process.  As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board (SIC), now the Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once the Final Report was issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities.

Responsibilities and Scope of Work for the Review Working Party

1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC;
2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[2];
3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council;
4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics;
5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities;
6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage participation.