Page History
A survey was set up to gather feedback and assess feasibility on the 36 recommendations in the Final Report published by Westlake Governance. Members of the GNSO Review Working Party were asked to complete the survey to assist in determining prioritization of the recommendations. Currently the The recommendations have been were categorized according to the following:
- Working Party suggests adoption of this recommendation
- Working Party is in agreement and flags that work is already underway
- Working Party agrees with intent and suggests modification to recommendation language
- Do not implement
| Working Party Revised Priority/Score (2) | Working Party Responses Provided in Survey (Survey Monkey*) (1) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rec | Independent Examiner's Final Recommendation | Comments & Notes from GNSO Review Working Party | GNSO Review WP Recommendation Language | (yellow recs only) | WP Revised Priority | WP Revised Score(3) | WP-Ease of Implementation | WP-Cost of Implementation | WP-Align with Strategic | DirectionPlan | WP-Impact Groups/Work (4) | WP-Additional Info? (5) | Survey Priority | ||||||||||||||
| 61 | That the GNSO record and regularly publish statistics on WG participation (including diversity statistics). | High | 6 | develop and monitor metrics to evaluate the ongoing effectiveness of current outreach strategies and pilot programmes with regard to GNSO Working Groups (WGs). | Need strategic goals, objectives, and KPIs - themes around problems that we want to solve. Should measure the shared effectiveness between ICANN and community. | Med | 3 | MediumEasy | Low | Yes | NoYes | No | HighMedium | ||||||||||||||
| 262 | That GNSO Council members, Executive Committee members of SGs and Cs and members of WGs complete and maintain a current, comprehensive SOI on the GNSO website. Where individuals represent bodies or clients, this information is to be posted. If not posted because of client confidentiality, the participant’s interest or position must be disclosed. Failing either of these, the individual not be permitted to participate. | High | 6 | Easy | the GNSO develop and fund more targeted programmes to recruit volunteers and broaden participation in PDP WGs, given the vital role volunteers play in Working Groups and policy development. | Create in-depth program should be developed; stronger volunteer drive that includes metrics to capture volunteers based on outreach efforts | Med | 2 | Hard | High | YesLow | Yes | NoNo | Medium | High | ||||||||||||
| 273 | That the GNSO | establish and maintain a centralised publicly available list of members and individual participants of every Constituency and Stakeholder Group (with a link to the individual’s SOI where one is required and posted).High | 5 | Medium | Low | Yes | No | No | High | ||||||||||||||||||
| 8 | That WGs should have an explicit role in responding to implementation issues related to policy they have developed. | Agree but work is already done elsewhere. Chuck: The already approved Policy & Implementation WG recommendations cover this. Ongoing GNSO action item: ensure it happens in all future policy implementation efforts. | High | 4-5 | Easy/Med | Low | Yes | Yes | No | High | |||||||||||||||||
| 15 | That the GNSO continues current PDP Improvements Project initiatives to address timeliness of the PDP. | Already being done. Chuck: GNSO action items: ensure that efforts to improve the timeliness of PDPs continue. | High | 4 | Medium | Low | Yes | Yes | No | High | |||||||||||||||||
| 16 | That a policy impact assessment (PIA) be included as a standard part of any policy process. | Already in the PDP manual. Have no analytical framework to do this. What is being measured? Chuck: GNSO action items: i) Develop an analytical framework for assessing policy impacts; ii) determine what should be measured and corresponding metrics. | High | 3-4 | Medium | Low/Med | Yes | Yes | No | High | |||||||||||||||||
| Council reduce or remove cost barriers to volunteer participation in WGs. | Overlap with other rec; GNSO Council should not determine how finances are allocated to WG members; what are cost barriers (time and costs?)?; training (wiki for example); identify cost barriers. | That the GNSO Council reduce time barriers to volunteer participation and consider ways enhance participation remotely without the need for travel expenditures. | Med | 1-2 | Hard | High | Yes | Yes | Yes/No | Medium | |||||||||||||||||
| 4 | That the GNSO Council introduce non-financial rewards and recognition for volunteers. | No financial rewards - such as travel funding. | Low | 4 | Easy | Low | No opinion | No | No | Low | |||||||||||||||||
| 5 | That, during each WG self-assessment, new members be asked how their input has been solicited and considered. | Med | 5 | Easy | Low | Yes | No | No | Medium | ||||||||||||||||||
| 6 | That the GNSO record and regularly publish statistics on WG participation (including diversity statistics). | High | 6 | Easy | Low | Yes | No | No | High | ||||||||||||||||||
| 7 | That Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies (Cs) engage more deeply with community members whose first language is other than English, as a means to overcoming language barriers. | Include summaries in multiple languages; combine with other similar recs; further discussions with reps from SGs and Cs together and see what needs are before the WP makes a recommendation. | That Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies (Cs) strive to overcome language barriers by participating in the WG established under Recommendation 35. | Med | 1 | Hard | High | Yes | Yes | Yes | Medium | ||||||||||||||||
| 8 | That WGs should have an explicit role in responding to implementation issues related to policy they have developed. | Agree but work is already done elsewhere. Chuck: The already approved Policy & Implementation WG recommendations cover this. Ongoing GNSO action item: ensure it happens in all future policy implementation efforts. | High | 4-5 | Easy/Med | Low | 18 | That the GNSO Council evaluate post implementation policy effectiveness on an ongoing basis (rather than periodically as stated in the current GNSO Operating Procedures); and that these evaluations are analysed by the GNSO Council to monitor and improve the drafting and scope of future PDP Charters and facilitate the effectiveness of GNSO policy outcomes over time. | Define at the start of implementation, the assessment period is established. How should GNSO council evaluate implemented policies? Aligns with dmpm. Chuck: The Working Party supports this recommendation. GNSO action items: i) Change the PDP Guidelines to make post-implementation policy effectiveness evaluation an ongoing rather than a periodic process and to include an assessment period at the start of the implementation process; ii) develop guidelines for how implementation of policies should be evaluated. | High | 3 | Med/Hard | Medium | Yes | Yes | No | High | ||||||||||
| 59 | That , during each WG self-assessment, new members be asked how their input has been solicited and considered.a formal Working Group leadership assessment programme be developed as part of the overall training and development programme. | Refine recommendation to note that it should develop a needs assessment for WG leaders. | Med | 52 | EasyMedium | LowMedium | Yes | NoYes | No | Medium (low/med/high) | 17 | That the practice of Working Group self-evaluation be incorporated into the policy development process; and that these evaluations should be published and used as a basis for continual process improvement in the PDP. | Med | 5 | Easy | Low | Yes | ||||||||||
| 10 | That the GNSO Council develop criteria for WGs to engage a professional facilitator/moderator in certain situations. | What does it mean to "engage"?; could be costly; develop criteria such as using an internal facilitator; should review existing pilot program already underway and that additional criteria be developed. | Med | 4 | Easy | Low | Yes/No | Yes/NoNo/No opinion | No | Medium | |||||||||||||||||
| 29 | That SOIs of GNSO Council Members and Executive Committee members of all SGs and Cs include the total number of years that person has held leadership positions in ICANN. | Med | 4-5 | Easy | Low | Yes/no opinion | No | No | Medium (Low/Med) | ||||||||||||||||||
| 11 | That the face-to-face PDP WG pilot project be assessed when completed. If the results are beneficial, guidelines should be developed and support funding made available. | Has been done for two years. Need to evaluate. Chuck: GNSO action items: i) Develop guidelines; ii) encourage support funding in the ICANN budget. | Med | 3 | Easy | High | Yes | Yes | No | Medium | |||||||||||||||||
| 12 | That ICANN assess the feasibility of providing a real-time transcripting service in audio conferences for WG meetings. | Connect with work already done with ALAC | 10 | That the GNSO Council develop criteria for WGs to engage a professional facilitator/moderator in certain situations. | What does it mean to "engage"?; could be costly; develop criteria such as using an internal facilitator; should review existing pilot program already underway and that additional criteria be developed. | Med | 4 | Easy (high)Low (Medium) | High | Yes/NoYes/ | No | No | Medium (Do not implement) | ||||||||||||||
| 1213 | That | ICANN assess the feasibility of providing a real-time transcripting service in audio conferences for WG meetings.Connect with work already done with ALAC | Med | 4 | Easy | High | Yes | No | No | Medium | |||||||||||||||||
| 33 | That SGs, Cs and the Nominating Committee, in selecting their candidates for appointment to the GNSO Council, should aim to increase the geographic, gender and cultural diversity of its participants, as defined in ICANN Core Value 4. | WP believes work is already being done but improvements/metrics need to be made in this area | Med | 4 | Medium (Easy/Hard) | Low | Yes | No | No | Medium (Low/Med) | |||||||||||||||||
| the GNSO Council evaluate and, if appropriate, pilot a technology solution (such as Loomio or similar) to facilitate wider participation in WG consensus-based decision making. | WP believes in continuous improvement; no specific tool is being recommended; tool must meet need that is currently not being met. | Med | 1 | Medium | Medium | No opinion | No opinion | Yes | Medium | ||||||||||||||||||
| 14 | That the GNSO further explores PDP ‘chunking’ and examines each potential PDP as to its feasibility for breaking into discrete stages. | Allow GNSO flexibility to determine when chunking (or phases) is appropriate; needs refinement. | Med | 3 | Medium | Low | Yes/no opinion | Yes | No | Medium | |||||||||||||||||
| 15 | That the GNSO continues current PDP Improvements Project initiatives to address timeliness of the PDP. | Already being done. Chuck: GNSO action items: ensure that efforts to improve the timeliness of PDPs continue. | High | 4 | 1 | That the GNSO develop and monitor metrics to evaluate the ongoing effectiveness of current outreach strategies and pilot programmes with regard to GNSO Working Groups (WGs). | Need strategic goals, objectives, and KPIs - themes around problems that we want to solve. Should measure the shared effectiveness between ICANN and community. | Med | 3Medium | Low | Yes | Yes | No | MediumHigh | |||||||||||||
| 1116 | That the face-to-face PDP WG pilot project be assessed when completed. If the results are beneficial, guidelines should be developed and support funding made available.a policy impact assessment (PIA) be included as a standard part of any policy process. | Already in the PDP manual. Have no analytical framework to do this. What is being measured?Has been done for two years. Need to evaluate. Chuck: GNSO action items: i) Develop guidelinesan analytical framework for assessing policy impacts; ii) encourage support funding in the ICANN budgetdetermine what should be measured and corresponding metrics. | Med | High | 3-4 | EasyMediumHigh | Low/Med | Yes | Yes | No | MediumHigh | ||||||||||||||||
| 1417 | That | the GNSO further explores PDP ‘chunking’ and examines each potential PDP as to its feasibility for breaking into discrete stages.the practice of Working Group self-evaluation be incorporated into the policy development process; and that these evaluations should be published and used as a basis for continual process improvement in the PDP. | Allow GNSO flexibility to determine when chunking (or phases) is appropriate; needs refinement. | Med | 35 | MediumEasy | Low | Yes | No/no No opinionYes | No | Medium | ||||||||||||||||
| 2418 | That the GNSO Council and SGs and Cs adhere to the published process for applications for new Constituencies. That the ICANN Board in assessing an application satisfy itself that all parties have followed the published process, subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is admitted. That all applications for new Constituencies, including historic applications, be published on the ICANN website with full transparency of decision-making. | Partly done. May need to be easier to find. Stephanie thinks that this is not being done and this should be done at the start. Chuck: Some in the Working Party believe this is already being done; some disagree. If it is being done, it should be done at the beginning of the process. Regardless, the Working Party believes that this recommendation will require some due diligence on the part of the GNSO. GNSO action items: i) Determine whether new Constituency application processes are clearly posted and easily accessible, ii) determine what steps are taken to ensure compliance with those processes and wether those steps are adequate; iii) determine if all Constituency applications, including historic ones, are publicly posted along with full transparency of the decision-making process; iv) determine whether or not there is a presumption that a new Constituency should be admitted if all requirements are met and if such a presumption is appropriate; v) determine what process the Board uses to evaluate new Constituency applications and whether they are ensuring process compliance; vi) make recommendations for any modifications to the process, if any. | Med | 3 | Hard (Medium) | Low | Yes | Yes/No | No | Medium (Low/Med/High) | evaluate post implementation policy effectiveness on an ongoing basis (rather than periodically as stated in the current GNSO Operating Procedures); and that these evaluations are analysed by the GNSO Council to monitor and improve the drafting and scope of future PDP Charters and facilitate the effectiveness of GNSO policy outcomes over time. | Define at the start of implementation, the assessment period is established. How should GNSO council evaluate implemented policies? Aligns with dmpm. Chuck: The Working Party supports this recommendation. GNSO action items: i) Change the PDP Guidelines to make post-implementation policy effectiveness evaluation an ongoing rather than a periodic process and to include an assessment period at the start of the implementation process; ii) develop guidelines for how implementation of policies should be evaluated. | High | 3 | Med/Hard | Medium | Yes | Yes | No | High | |||||||
| 19 | As strategic manager rather than a policy body the GNSO Council should continue to focus on ensuring that a WG has been properly constituted, has thoroughly fulfilled the terms of its charter and has followed due process. | Work is already being done. | Low | 5 | Easy | Low | Yes | No | No | Low | |||||||||||||||||
| 20 | That the GNSO Council should review annually ICANN’s Strategic Objectives with a view to planning future policy development that strikes a balance between ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development. | Modify rec - input from GNSO should go into the Strategic Planning process. | That the GNSO Council should participate in developing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and plan future policy development that aligns the Strategic Objectives with GNSO resources. | Low | 3 | Medium | Low | Yes | Yes | No | Low | ||||||||||||||||
| 21 | That the GNSO Council should regularly undertake or commission analysis of trends in gTLDs in order to forecast likely requirements for policy and to ensure those affected are well-represented in the policy-making process. | This recommendation is not well phrased and does not compare to what is in the Final Report; additionally, the GNSO Review Working Party does not feel that it is appropriate to implement the recommendation at this time. | N/A - Low | Medium | High | Yes/No | Yes | No | Do not implement | ||||||||||||||||||
| 22 | That the GNSO Council develop a competency-based framework, which its members should utilise to identify development needs and opportunities. | Reword recommendation: develop a framework to identify training needs on policy development process so that members have appropriate skills and background to participate effectively in the policy development process. This training is not intended to address technical issues. | That the GNSO Council develop a technical competency-based expectation of its members and provide training on the policy development process. | Low | 1 | Hard | High | No opinion | Yes | No | Low | ||||||||||||||||
| 23 | In order to support ICANN's multi-stakeholder model, all Cs should have seats on the GNSO Council, allocated equally (as far as numerically practicable) by their SGs. | N/A - Low | Hard | 31 | That the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on GAC Early Engagement in the GNSO Policy Development Process continue its two work streams as priority projects. As a part of its work it should consider how the GAC could appoint a non-binding, non-voting liaison to the WG of each relevant GNSO PDP as a means of providing timely input. | Ongoing work. Chuck:: The Working Party encourages the ongoing work of the Consultation Group and suggests that it consider whether ‘the GAC could appoint a non-binding, non-voting liaison to the WG of each relevant GNSO PDP as a means of providing timely input.’ GNSO action item: Send a letter to the GAC expressing appreciation for the work of the Consultation Group, encourage continuation of the group and ask whether it might be worthwhile for the GAC to consider appointing ‘a non-binding, non-voting liaison to the WG of each relevant GNSO PDP as a means of providing timely input.’ (An alternative approach here may be to first test this with the GNSO GAC liaison.) | Med | 3 | Medium | Low | Yes | Yes | No | Med (Low/Med) | Do not implement | ||||||||||||
| 2435 | That the GNSO Council | establish a WG, whose membership specifically reflects the demographic, cultural, gender and age diversity of the Internet as a whole, to recommend to Council ways to reduce barriers to participation in the GNSO by non- English speakers and those with limited command of English.Agree with the intent, but not the WG approach. Chuck: What is wrong with the WG approach? What would be an alternative way of fulfilling the intent of this recommendation? | That the GNSO Council establish a WG to recommend ways to reduce barriers to participation by non-English speakers and those with limited command of English. To the extent practicable, the members of the WG should be diverse and reflect demographic, cultural, gender and age diversity. | Med | 3 | Hard | High | Yes | No | No | Medium (Do not implement) | ||||||||||||||||
| 2 | That the GNSO develop and fund more targeted programmes to recruit volunteers and broaden participation in PDP WGs, given the vital role volunteers play in Working Groups and policy development. | Create in-depthh program should be developed; stronger volunteer drive that includes metrics to capture volunteers based on outreach efforts | Med | 2 | Hard (medium) | High (medium) | Yes | Yes | No | Medium (High) | |||||||||||||||||
| 9 | That a formal Working Group leadership assessment programme be developed as part of the overall training and development programme. | Refine recommendation to note that it should develop a needs assessment for WG leaders. | Med | 2 | Medium | Medium | Yes | Yes | No | Medium | |||||||||||||||||
| 3 | That the GNSO Council reduce or remove cost barriers to volunteer participation in WGs. | Overlap with other rec; GNSO Council should not determine how finances are allocated to WG members; what are cost barriers (time and costs?)?; training (wiki for example); identify cost barriers. | That the GNSO Council reduce time barriers to volunteer participation and consider ways enhance participation remotely without the need for travel expenditures. | Med | 1-2 | Hard | High | Yes | Yes | Yes/No | Medium | ||||||||||||||||
| 7 | That Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies (Cs) engage more deeply with community members whose first language is other than English, as a means to overcoming language barriers. | Include summaries in multiple languages; combine with other similar recs; further discussions with reps from SGs and Cs together and see what needs are before the WP makes a recommendation. | That Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies (Cs) strive to overcome language barriers by participating in the WG established under Recommendation 35. | Med | 1 | Hard | High | Yes | Yes | Yes | Medium | ||||||||||||||||
| 13 | That the GNSO Council evaluate and, if appropriate, pilot a technology solution (such as Loomio or similar) to facilitate wider participation in WG consensus-based decision making. | WP believes in continuous improvement; no specific tool is being recommended; tool must meet need that is currently not being met. | Med | 1 | Medium | Medium | No opinion | No opinion | Yes | Medium (Low/Med) | |||||||||||||||||
| and SGs and Cs adhere to the published process for applications for new Constituencies. That the ICANN Board in assessing an application satisfy itself that all parties have followed the published process, subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is admitted. That all applications for new Constituencies, including historic applications, be published on the ICANN website with full transparency of decision-making. | Partly done. May need to be easier to find. Stephanie thinks that this is not being done and this should be done at the start. Chuck: Some in the Working Party believe this is already being done; some disagree. If it is being done, it should be done at the beginning of the process. Regardless, the Working Party believes that this recommendation will require some due diligence on the part of the GNSO. GNSO action items: i) Determine whether new Constituency application processes are clearly posted and easily accessible, ii) determine what steps are taken to ensure compliance with those processes and whether those steps are adequate; iii) determine if all Constituency applications, including historic ones, are publicly posted along with full transparency of the decision-making process; iv) determine whether or not there is a presumption that a new Constituency should be admitted if all requirements are met and if such a presumption is appropriate; v) determine what process the Board uses to evaluate new Constituency applications and whether they are ensuring process compliance; vi) make recommendations for any modifications to the process, if any. | Med | 3 | Hard | Low | Yes | Yes/No | No | Medium | ||||||||||||||||||
| 25 | That the GNSO Council commission the development of, and implement, guidelines to provide assistance for groups wishing to establish a new Constituency. | Guidance already exist; assistance is already made available. Chuck: The Working Party believes that guidance already exists and that assistance is already made available but suggests that the effectiveness and ease of finding the guidance and obtaining assistance be evaluated to see if improvements may be in order. GNSO action items: i) Evaluate the effectiveness and accessibility of guidance for new Constituency applications; ii) recommend improvements to the guidance and the available assistance as appropriate. | Low | 3-5 | Easy/Med | Low/Med | Yes | No | No | Low | |||||||||||||||||
| 26 | That GNSO Council members, Executive Committee members of SGs and Cs and members of WGs complete and maintain a current, comprehensive SOI on the GNSO website. Where individuals represent bodies or clients, this information is to be posted. If not posted because of client confidentiality, the participant’s interest or position must be disclosed. Failing either of these, the individual not be permitted to participate. | High | 6 | Easy | Low | Yes | No | No | High | ||||||||||||||||||
| 27 | That the GNSO establish and maintain a centralised publicly available list of members and individual participants of every Constituency and Stakeholder Group (with a link to the individual’s SOI where one is required and posted). | High | 5 | Medium | Low | Yes | No | No | High | ||||||||||||||||||
| 28 | That section 6.1.2 of the GNSO Operating Procedures be revised, as shown in Appendix 6, to clarify that key clauses are mandatory rather than advisory, and to institute meaningful sanctions for non-compliance where appropriate. | Low | 4 | Medium | Low | Yes | No | No | Low | ||||||||||||||||||
| 29 | That SOIs of GNSO Council Members and Executive Committee members of all SGs and Cs include the total number of years that person has held leadership positions in ICANN. | Med | 4-5 | Easy | Low | Yes/no opinion | No | No | Medium | ||||||||||||||||||
| 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. | First part is done, but not the second. Chuck: The Working Party believes that there is already a procedure for providing some forms of administrative support to SGs and Cs but that there is not a procedure for SGs and Cs to evaluate the effectiveness of the support provided. GNSO action items: i) Identify and review the existing procedures for SGs and Cs to obtain administrative support; ii) evaluate the adequacy & effectiveness of the existing procedures including whether additional forms of support might be beneficial; iii) develop recommendations for improvements to the procedures and new types of support, if any. | Low | 3 | Medium | Medium | 19 | As strategic manager rather than a policy body the GNSO Council should continue to focus on ensuring that a WG has been properly constituted, has thoroughly fulfilled the terms of its charter and has followed due process. | Work is already being done. | Low | 5 | Easy | Low | Yes | No | No | Low | ||||||||||
| 2531 | That the GNSO Council commission the development of, and implement, guidelines to provide assistance for groups wishing to establish a new Constituency. | Guidance already exist; assistance is already made available. Chuck: The Working Party believes that guidance already exists and that assistance is already made available but suggests that the effectiveness and ease of finding the guidance and obtaining assistance be evaluated to see if improvements may be in order. GNSO action items: i) Evaluate the effectiveness and accessibility of guidance for new Constituency applications; ii) recommend improvements to the guidance and the available assistance as appropriate. | Low | 3-5 | Easy/Med | Low/Med | Yes | No | No | Low | |||||||||||||||||
| 4 | That the GNSO Council introduce non-financial rewards and recognition for volunteers. | No financial rewards - such as travel funding. | Low | 4 | Easy | Low | No opinion | No | No | Low | |||||||||||||||||
| 28 | That section 6.1.2 of the GNSO Operating Procedures be revised, as shown in Appendix 6, to clarify that key clauses are mandatory rather than advisory, and to institute meaningful sanctions for non-compliance where appropriate. | Low | 4 | Medium (Easy/Med) | Low | Yes | No | No | Low | ||||||||||||||||||
| 34 | That PDP WGs rotate the start time of their meetings in order not to disadvantage people who wish to participate from anywhere in the world. | Some groups already do this, but it's not a standard. Add some language to flag that this should be tested for effectiveness. | Low | 4 | Easy | Low | Yes | Yes | No | Low | |||||||||||||||||
| 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. | First part is done, but not the second. Chuck: The Working Party believes that there is already a procedure for providing some forms of administrative support to SGs and Cs but that there is not a procedure for SGs and Cs to evaluate the effectiveness of the support provided. GNSO action items: i) Identify and review the existing procedures for SGs and Cs to obtain administrative support; ii) evaluate the adequacy & effectiveness of the existing procedures including whether additional forms of support might be beneficial; iii) develop recommendations for improvements to the procedures and new types of support, if any. | Low | 3 | Medium | Medium | Yes | No | No | Low | |||||||||||||||||
| 20 | That the GNSO Council should review annually ICANN’s Strategic Objectives with a view to planning future policy development that strikes a balance between ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development. | Modify rec - input from GNSO should go into the Strategic Planning process. | That the GNSO Council should participate in developing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and plan future policy development that aligns the Strategic Objectives with GNSO resources. | Low | 3 | Medium | Low | Yes | Yes | No | Low | ||||||||||||||||
| GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on GAC Early Engagement in the GNSO Policy Development Process continue its two work streams as priority projects. As a part of its work it should consider how the GAC could appoint a non-binding, non-voting liaison to the WG of each relevant GNSO PDP as a means of providing timely input. | Ongoing work. Chuck:: The Working Party encourages the ongoing work of the Consultation Group and suggests that it consider whether ‘the GAC could appoint a non-binding, non-voting liaison to the WG of each relevant GNSO PDP as a means of providing timely input.’ GNSO action item: Send a letter to the GAC expressing appreciation for the work of the Consultation Group, encourage continuation of the group and ask whether it might be worthwhile for the GAC to consider appointing ‘a non-binding, non-voting liaison to the WG of each relevant GNSO PDP as a means of providing timely input.’ (An alternative approach here may be to first test this with the GNSO GAC liaison.) | Med | 3 | Medium | Low | Yes | Yes | No | Med | ||||||||||||||||||
| 32 | That ICANN define “cultural diversity” (possibly by using birth language); and regularly publish this along with geographic, gender and age group metrics, at least for the GNSO Council, SGs, Cs and WGs. | Do not implement - too broad. | N/A - Low | Medium | Low | Yes | Yes | No | Low | ||||||||||||||||||
| 33 | That SGs, Cs and the Nominating Committee, in selecting their candidates for appointment to the GNSO Council, should aim to increase the geographic, gender and cultural diversity of its participants, as defined in ICANN Core Value 4. | WP believes work is already being done but improvements/metrics need to be made in this area | Med | 4 | Medium | Low | Yes | No | No | Medium | |||||||||||||||||
| 34 | That PDP WGs rotate the start time of their meetings in order not to disadvantage people who wish to participate from anywhere in the world. | Some groups already do this, but it's not a standard. Add some language to flag that this should be tested for effectiveness. | Low | 4 | Easy | Low | Yes | Yes | No | Low | |||||||||||||||||
| 35 | That the GNSO Council establish a WG, whose membership specifically reflects the demographic, cultural, gender and age diversity of the Internet as a whole, to recommend to Council ways to reduce barriers to participation in the GNSO by non- English speakers and those with limited command of English. | Agree with the intent, but not the WG approach. The metrics used to measure diversity should be specified with more consideration to what can actually be defined and measured. Chuck: What is wrong with the WG approach? What would be an alternative way of fulfilling the intent of this recommendation? | That the GNSO Council establish a WG to recommend ways to reduce barriers to participation by non-English speakers and those with limited command of English. To the extent practicable, the members of the WG should be diverse and reflect demographic, cultural, gender and age diversity. | Med | 3 | Hard | High | Yes | No | No | Medium | ||||||||||||||||
| 36 | 36 | That, when approving the formation of a PDP WG, the GNSO Council require that its membership represent as far as reasonably practicable the geographic, cultural and gender diversity of the Internet as a whole. Additionally, that when approving GNSO Policy, the ICANN Board explicitly satisfy itself that the GNSO Council undertook these actions when approving the formation of a PDP WG. | Reword recommendation so that it corresponds to the process that Council goes through in terms of approving a PDP, forming a working group, etc. and that Council review accomplishment toward achieving diversity and proper representation of all stakeholders; begin data collection as soon as possible. | That, when approving the formation of a PDP WG, the GNSO Council | strive for its membership to be diverse and reflect demographic, cultural, gender and age diversity. Whenrequire that its membership represent as far as reasonably practicable the geographic, cultural and gender diversity of the Internet as a whole. Additionally, that when approving GNSO Policy, the | Board should take into consideration if reasonable measures were taken to achieve such diversity.Low | 1-2 | Hard | High | Yes/no opinion | Yes | No | Low (Do not implement) | 22 | That the GNSO Council develop a competency-based framework, which its members should utilise to identify development needs and opportunities. | Reword recommendation: develop a framework to identify training needs on policy development process so that members have appropriate skills and background to participate effectively in the policy development process. This training is not intended to address technical issues. | ICANN Board explicitly satisfy itself that the GNSO Council undertook these actions when approving the formation of a PDP WG. | Reword recommendation so that it corresponds to the process that Council goes through in terms of approving a PDP, forming a working group, etc. and that Council review accomplishment toward achieving diversity and proper representation of all stakeholders; begin data collection as soon as possible. The metrics used to measure diversity should be specified with more consideration to what can actually be defined and measured. | That, when approving the formation of a PDP WG, the GNSO Council strive for its membership to be diverse and reflect demographic, cultural, gender and age diversity. When approving GNSO Policy, the Board should take into consideration if reasonable measures were taken to achieve such diversityThat the GNSO Council develop a technical competency-based expectation of its members and provide training on the policy development process. | Low | 1-2 | Hard | High | No Yes/no opinion | Yes | No | Low |
| Footnotes | Low | ||||||||||||
| 21 | That the GNSO Council should regularly undertake or commission analysis of trends in gTLDs in order to forecast likely requirements for policy and to ensure those affected are well-represented in the policy-making process. | This recommendation is not well phrased and does not compare to what is in the Final Report; additionally, the GNSO Review Working Party does not feel that it is appropriate to implement the recommendation at this time. | N/A - Low | Medium | High | Yes/No | Yes | No | Do not implement | ||||
| 32 | That ICANN define “cultural diversity” (possibly by using birth language); and regularly publish this along with geographic, gender and age group metrics, at least for the GNSO Council, SGs, Cs and WGs. | Do not implement - too broad. | N/A - Low | Medium | Low | Yes | Yes | No | Low | ||||
| (1) | Prepared by Staff based on a survey completed by GNSO Review Working Party members. | ||||||||||||
| This included 13 responses (11 were complete and 2 were incomplete). However, the number of responses to any given question may vary. | |||||||||||||
| The intent of the survey was to aggregate feedback from individual Review Team members to facilitate further analysis and discussion. | |||||||||||||
| (2) | Using the aggregation and categorization that resulted from the survey responses, the Working Party further analyzed and discussed each recommendation. | ||||||||||||
| The outcome was the final determination of category (color designation) and Priority. | |||||||||||||
| (3) | 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). | ||||||||||||
| (4) | The Working Party considered whether the recommendation had impact on other groups besides the GNSO and whether additional alignment would be needed. | ||||||||||||
| (5) | The Working Party considered whether additional information was needed in order to evaluate the recommendation. | 23 | In order to support ICANN's multi-stakeholder model, all Cs should have seats on the GNSO Council, allocated equally (as far as numerically practicable) by their SGs. | N/A - Low | Hard | Low | Yes | Yes | No | Do not implement |
