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 |
