You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 5 Next »

Please provide any additional comments in the table below (you must be logged in to edit the table and provide your comments).

Comment #Working Text ReferenceWorking Text Page #Comment Provided ByComment - Working Party Members Provide Feedback Here
1Section 3, Context for this Review6Philip 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.

2GeneralGeneralStephanie PerrinThank 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 10Stephanie PerrinSecond 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 11Stephanie PerrinI 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?
5GeneralGeneralStephanie 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.

  • No labels