3,197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 21:
Line 21: − + + + + + + − + + + + + + +
→Independent Examiner Findings and Recommendations
==Independent Examiner Findings and Recommendations==
==Independent Examiner Findings and Recommendations==
[[Westlake Governance Ltd]] was selected to perform the GNSO2 assessment.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/westlake-governance-appointed-to-conduct-independent-review-of-the-gnso-23-6-2014-en ICANN.org Announcement - Westlake Governance Appointed to Conduct GNSO2 Review], June 23, 2014</ref> The Westlake team took a year to conduct the review, submitting its draft report in May 2015<ref name="dashboard" />
[[Westlake Governance Ltd]] was selected to perform the GNSO2 assessment in June 2014.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/westlake-governance-appointed-to-conduct-independent-review-of-the-gnso-23-6-2014-en ICANN.org Announcement - Westlake Governance Appointed to Conduct GNSO2 Review], June 23, 2014</ref> Westlake submitted its draft report for public comment in May 2015.<ref name="dashboard" />
===Methodology===
===Methodology===
The Westlake team's methodology "expanded well beyond" the proposed scope in the RFP.<ref name="draftrep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-draft-29may15-en.pdf Draft Report of Independent Examiner - GNSO2], May 29, 2015</ref> The team utilized the following approaches:
# Examination of documentation, records, and reports;
# Outcomes from the 360-degree Assessment and Supplementary Working Group Surveys;
# Integration of Assessments from [[Second Accountability and Transparency Review|ATRT2]]; and
# "Limited" interviews (see below).<ref name="draftrep" />
The Westlake team encountered some challenges in the information-gathering phase. First, the 360-degree assessment, while widely responded to, did not present sufficient feedback on the effectiveness and operations of working groups within the GNSO. A separate survey was launched specific to working groups, and while the responses received were a useful source of qualitative data, there were not enough responses to draw conclusions on quantitative grounds.<ref name="draftrep" /> There were also a number of "high priority" respondents that did not answer either survey, resulting in a need to increase the number of interviews conducted.<ref name="draftrep" /> In all, there were over 156 completed responses to the initial 360-degree assessment, twenty-five responses from twenty individuals to the follow-up survey on working groups, and forty interviews conducted to both validate findings from the assessments and to provide depth and background.<ref name="draftrep" /> As Westlake reported:
<blockquote>In retrospect this approach was less than ideally efficient:
<ol style="lower-alpha">
<li> It is almost axiomatic that members of the Working Party are currently active in the GNSO and a significant number of its members have significant experience with ICANN over many years. Not surprisingly, the composition of the Working Party largely reflects ICANN’s and the GNSO’s demographic make-up – most of them would likely be viewed as GNSO ‘insiders’. As a result, issues of concern to ‘outsiders’ and those with little experience in ICANN did not emerge as clearly in the early stages as they did later.</li>
<li> As a result of feedback we received after the launch of the 360o Assessment, we were made aware that we needed to examine the role of GNSO Working Groups in more detail than the 360o Assessment had provided. We therefore developed and launched a Supplementary Working Group survey that was posted after the close of the main 360o Assessment. This Supplementary survey gathered some useful information, from a small number of people who completed it, but the number of responses was small (25 responses – including multiple responses from a small number of people who commented on more than one Working Group). The actual number of individuals responding was fewer than 20 so we attempted where possible to cross-check comments against those from people we later interviewed.</li>
<li> The 360 Assessment and the Working Group surveys for this review were initially published in English, and ICANN translated both surveys into the five other United Nations languages, posting invitations in all of these languages on the GNSO website. Social media, including communications in the five other UN languages, were deployed consistently to promote the surveys and encourage participation. Despite these efforts and significant promotion of both surveys, we did not receive a single request to send a copy of the survey in any language other than English. We did receive two sets of responses in French, but these were posted to the English language version of the 360o Assessment. We conclude from this that even those respondents had at least a working knowledge of English, in order to understand the statements they were responding to.</li>
</ol><ref name="draftrep" /></blockquote>
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}