3,197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 29:
Line 29: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
===2006 Review by the London School of Economics===
===2006 Review by the London School of Economics===
In 2006, ICANN commissioned the Public Policy Group of the London School of Economics (LSE) to review the GNSO and its operations.<ref name="lserep1">[https://archive.icann.org/en/announcements/gnso-review-report-sep06.pdf A Review of the GNSO], September 2006</ref> The questions were again drawn from Article 4 of the bylaws (as they existed at the time): did the GNSO still serve a purpose, and if so, what improvements could be made to its process and operations?<ref name="lserep1" />
The LSE report shared some common findings with Sharry's review and the GNSO self-assessment. Once again, the established timelines for policy development processes were deemed to be unreasonable given the nature and complexity of the work involved. The LSE echoed Sharry's report regarding the lack of impact assessment or formal metrics for judging the success of implemented policies. Although the LSE found that ICANN staff support of the GNSO had grown in meaningful ways, further capacity-building and tool training could be accomplished to further strengthen trust, clarity, and efficiency in interactions between staff and GNSO teams.<ref name="lserep1" />
The LSE report diverged from the 2004 assessments in its attention to the structure, composition, and representativeness of the GNSO and its constituencies. In the executive summary of the report, the team described its objections to the current constituency model:
<blockquote>The current pattern of Constituencies is relatively complex and no longer seems well-adapted to the needs of all stakeholders in the rapidly changing Internet community. Although the Constituency structure does provide a potential home for almost all types of interest, there are signs that the current structures tend to reflect a snapshot of interests that were present at the beginning of this decade and lack internal flexibility to incorporate new types of stakeholders from commercial and civil society. There is consequently much scope to grow and diversify membership of the GNSO, and to adapt structures in such a way that they are flexible and agile enough to respond to new policy development issues.<ref name="lserep1" /></blockquote>
The team also noted "worrying signs of dominance of some constituencies" by a small group of people, and low participation rates in policy development work by members of constituencies.<ref name="lserep1" />
The report offered a number of recommendations that focused on structural flexibility, representation, and growing the GNSO's ability to shift with the ever-shifting environment of the Internet. The report identified four key principles that should guide recommendations for change: increasing visibility and transparency of operations; increasing the representativeness of the GNSO Council and its Constituencies; increasing structural adaptability; and improving mechanisms for reaching "genuinely consensus opinions."<ref name="lserep1" />
Through this lens, the LSE team found cause to recommend substantial reforms. Among the report's twenty-four recommendations, several significant changes were proposed:
* Reduce the number of constituencies to three: registration interests, business users, and civil society.
* Establish a "direct membership" in ICANN for firms, other organizations, and individuals. Guide newly-joined members into relevant constituencies, and provide staff support at the constituency level to sustain their activities and outreach work.
* Create "radically improved ICANN and GNSO websites" that can effectively represent the GNSO to the Internet community.
* Abolish weighted voting for registration interests. Give registration interests and business users an effective veto over non-consensus change. Raise the threshold for "consensus policy" from 66 to 75 per cent agreement.
* Reduce teleconference and remote meetings and shift to increased face-to-face meetings of the Council. Reimburse the travel expenses of councilors to enable this.
* Expand the use of task forces with independent outside expertise, to broaden the involvement of interests from outside ICANN and to speed up policy development.
* Leverage staff expertise to speed up policy development and help focus the Council's attention on key issues and decisions.
* Establish term limits for GNSO Councilors. Create stronger protections against the non-disclosure of interests.
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}