Page History
...
Comment # | Working Text Reference | Working Text Page # | Comment Provided By | Comment - Working Party Members Provide Feedback Here | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Section 3, Context for this Review | 6 | Philip Sheppard | It is suggested that this key ICANN board resolution is included: In its resolution of 28 September 2013 the ICANN Board stated: “The expansion of the TLD space has increased the number and variety of stakeholders participating in GNSO policy making and a review needs to take place on schedule to examine whether the current model meets the needs of a new generation of stakeholders. GNSO Structure is unlikely to accommodate the anticipated new stream of stakeholders resulting from the expansion of the TLD space. The GNSO Review will be an important vehicle for considering and addressing this issue. The unbalance that is already occurring needs to be addressed by the GNSO Review. ” | |||
2 | General | General | Stephanie Perrin | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Westlake report. There is much good work in here, but I believe a lot of work remains to be done prior to releasing a draft report for comments. I would respectfully submit that the GNSO Review working party needs to see the next iteration of this report prior to its release for public comment, because there are a number of issues that need to be rectified. | |||
3 | 10 | Stephanie Perrin | Second survey on PDPs was not advertised as well as it might have been….not a good sample size. I would have filled it out, did not know. | ||||
4 | 11 | Stephanie Perrin | I am admittedly more accustomed to independent review performed by governments, where review is done by officers of Parliament and is quite independent, usually monitored by internal auditors to ensure appropriate distance. However, I must point out that if Westlake was talking to staff and receiving guidance from them on a daily basis, with weekly calls, this is hardly an independent review. I would also note that I recognize 7 of the interviewees as staff (and I may be missing some as I don’t recognize all the names, and some more could be in the anonymous interviewees) but even at 7 that is 18% of a very small sample. Staff are terrific resources, but I think this survey should not rely so heavily on staff observations and interventions. Perhaps they could be analysed separately? | ||||
5 | General | General | Stephanie Perrin | I would close by saying that I would be delighted to be interviewed, if Westlake wished to enlarge its sample size a bit. I am a relatively new participant at ICANN (two years, 8 meetings) and a new member on council. I don’t believe newcomers are well represented in the current sample, which is a pity, because we are less likely to have history which might colour our observations, and we are supposed to be a target group for recruiting and preventing burnout. | |||
6 | General | General | Avri Doria | Personally I find it unfortuante that your draft report put out calumnious quotes that have no basic in fact. I for one have been working very hard to help NPOC make its way in the NCSG and find the fact that this is what you picked to include so very unfortunate. Now instead of dealing with the substance of the report the NCUC is going to have to deal with arguing against the lies. (FOLLOW-UP EMAIL): I wish to withdraw part of my statement. I assumed I knew the short list who uttered those statements. I can't know and there is every chance that I am wrong. I am glad I did not name names, but I must say, the problem remains with the quotes and the fact that many have already had the same assumption about the speakers I had. | |||
7 | The authors of the draft report repeatedly acknowledge its methodological limitations. They described their approach to interviews as ‘less than ideally efficient’ (p. 9). There are recurrent references to the authors being ‘unable to find evidence’ (e.g., p. 51), the lack of ‘objective and quantifiable criteria’ (p. 7) and of the lack of quantitative data concerning volunteer participation rates, retention rates, diversity, gender and of statistics concerning the recruitment and intake of new volunteers (p. 8). | 7, 8, 9, 51 | NCUC | While appreciative of the honesty of the Westlake team in mentioning their challenges, it should be noted that mere acknowledgement of a study’s deficiencies does not free the study of those limitations. It certainly did not do so here. Moreover, the false assertions about NCUC could easily have been “fact checked” before inclusion by consulting our website and open mail list archives, or by asking us about them. | |||
8 | General | n/a | NCUC | The study seems to have a constantly changing and imprecise design that meanders between various means of investigation without fully investing in any one. As a qualitative study there is no perceptible strategy or control other than the relay of “observations” of Westlake staff and the selected use of anecdotes from unidentified parties. A clearly defined narrative approach may have proven useful here but there is no indication that was ever considered or acted upon. The quantitative aspects of the study lack any rigor or application of standard statistical sampling or analysis techniques. Samples are generally undefined and too small to generate the conclusions extrapolated from them. Adjustment of methodology mid-study (e.g. the Supplementary Working Group survey) raise questions of corrective measures polluting the findings (e.g. strategic sampling). | |||
9 | General | 8, 78, 79 | NCUC | All aspects of sampling in this study are problematic. Number of NCUC members: 404 | |||
10 | General | 7, 81, 82, 90, 92 | NCUC | The analysis is replete with generalities not adequately linked to facts. This is particularly problematic when so much of this study is based upon Westlake’s observations and selected anecdotes. A high degree of approximation occurs throughout the study. Consider these examples: “There was a view that” (p. 82); “anecdotal but credible instances” (p. 7); “we received no comment…based on this, we conclude this is no longer a significant issue” (p. 95); “some survey respondents” (p. 81); “there is a perception among some” (p. 81); “there is an often expressed view” (p. 90); and “we encountered active hostility to new leaders from a few participants” (p. 90). Instead of some, how many? Instead of often, how often? A professional study should have recommendations based on specific facts in evidence. Too often this study does not. Of particular concern are the Westlake Review Recommendations on page 92 of this Report. Several of these recommendations, such as those involving travel, are not supported by anything substantive previously discussed in the draft Report. | |||
11 | General | n/a | NCUC | Quotations used in this study are completely stripped of context and because of this are of limited value. A professional study of this type should have as its base proper design, a reliance upon facts obtained in a credible and transparent manner that meet basic standards of empirical research. This study does not, as is acknowledged at times by its own authors. Until it does, any recommendations made by Westlake should be considered as emanating from a flawed and poorly constructed study. | |||
12 | General | n/a | NCUC | The draft report is at its best when it is summarizing the recommendations of previous GNSO reviews (Sharry, Council Self Review, LSE, ATRT2). We agree with Westlake that previous recommendations concerning accessibility, transparency and diversity need to be implemented by all constituencies and stakeholder groups. We have raised this directly in the past with Fadi and other senior staff. We would welcome broad-based progress on these scores, which the NCUC has already pursued. | |||
13 | General | n/a | NCUC | One of the more unsettling aspects of the draft Report is its substitution of opinion or conjecture for data that is readily available. We note that the authors of this independent study were guided in this process by ICANN staff who “on several occasions have directed us to information that we might not otherwise have been aware of or otherwise been able to find” (p. 11). We certainly would have welcomed the same opportunity at an earlier time to help and guide the Westlake team in this manner. | |||
14 | General | n/a | Ron Andruff | From our research, we understand the NCUC, NPOC and NCSG membership lists are publicly available. The following SGs/Cs do not make membership information publicly available:
The BC membership list is the first thing noted on our web site, right above our Charter: http://www.bizconst.org/members/ | |||
15 | General | n/a | Ron Andruff | That the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on Early Engagement continue its two work streams as priority projects. As a part of its work it should consider how the GAC could appoint a liaison (non-voting) to each GNSO PDP WG as a means of providing timely non-binding input. Having been actively engaged in discussions for one (or more) GAC members to join the Nominating Committee, the issues govenrments face in providing liaisons to the Nom Com, working groups or other bodies is that no one nation can speak or act on behalf of another sovereign nation. Hence, even if there was a significant number of GAC members in agreement with sending liaisons (and there is no evidence of that as far as I see) there is no current mechanism to effect what Westlake is suggesting. | |||
16 | Section 2, List of Recommendations | 5 | Chuck Gomes | This is a very important section. Because of the fact that the report will be very lengthy (even without the appendices and attachments), we can count on the fact that not very many people will find the time to read it all. At the same time, if we want to maximize public comments, we need to provide the recommendations in brief format very early in the report and encourage people to focus on those and comment on them. With each brief statement of the recommendations we should include a reference to where more detail can be found in the report. | |||
17 | Section 4, Review Methodology (Outcomes from the 360 Assessment) - "wide and representative sample" | 8 | Chuck Gomes | Is this true for all groups? It certainly is not true for non-English speakers and I suspect other groups as well. | |||
18 | Appendix 3, "Role" | 111 | Chuck Gomes | What was the intent of this column? At present it is blank so it should be eliminated if it not going to serve a purpose. | |||
19 | General | n/a | IPC | The IPC understands that this ‘Working Text’ document is very preliminary, as it is still missing many sections and substantive recommendations. As such, the IPC only points out some of the clear factual inaccuracies related to the IPC. We will welcome further opportunity to comment substantively on a complete Draft Report once it is prepared. | We further note that just one IPC member appears to have been interviewed in preparation of the report. Perhaps that contributed to some of the factual inaccuracies. And perhaps the Draft Report would be better informed upon interviewing several more of our members. As a matter of fundamental transparency and fairness, it seems more parity should have been achieved in the interview selection process. We are happy to facilitate further interviews for Westlake if desired. |