3,197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: + + + + + + + +
→Initiation and RFP
===Influence of Review Improvement Discussions within the SIC===
===Influence of Review Improvement Discussions within the SIC===
At the time that GNSO2 was initiated, the [[Organizational Effectiveness Committee|Structural Improvements Committee]] (as it was then known) was engaged in a discussion regarding the [[ICANN Reviews#2014-15 Standardization Efforts|standardization and streamlining of reviews]]. Ray Plzak's observation, above, that independent examiners were "charging around" appeared to be part of the impetus for implementing a standard framework for reviews and closely guiding the activities of the independent examiners. It also appears that GNSO2 was in some ways a pilot project for a new, restrictive, set of guidelines regarding the scope and intent or the review.<ref>For more background on the SIC's efforts at the time, see ICANNWiki's [[ICANN Reviews#2014-15 Standardization Efforts|ICANN Reviews]] article</ref>
At the time that GNSO2 was initiated, the [[Organizational Effectiveness Committee|Structural Improvements Committee]] (as it was then known) was engaged in a discussion regarding the [[ICANN Reviews#2014-15 Standardization Efforts|standardization and streamlining of reviews]]. Ray Plzak's observation, above, that independent examiners were "charging around" appeared to be part of the impetus for implementing a standard framework for reviews and closely guiding the activities of the independent examiners. It also appears that GNSO2 was in some ways a pilot project for a new, restrictive, set of guidelines regarding the scope and intent or the review.<ref>For more background on the SIC's efforts at the time, see ICANNWiki's [[ICANN Reviews#2014-15 Standardization Efforts|ICANN Reviews]] article</ref>
===NCPH Objection to Scope, January 2014===
In January 2014, during the course of the review, the [[Non-Contracted Parties House]] of the GNSO met to discuss a variety of issues relevant to its constituency. Among those issues was the scope and focus of the GNSO2 review. The result was a letter to the ICANN Board regarding the failure of the review to address structural issues.<ref name="ncphletter">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ncph-participants-to-icann-board-16jan15-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - NCPH Letter to ICANN Board], January 16, 2015</ref> In contradiction to Ray Plzak's position, above, the NCPH urged the Board to address the GNSO's structural issues:
<blockquote>What is required is a thorough review of the current GNSO structure that takes full account of the evolution of the DNS and the interaction that is required between those players who have a major role to play in GNSO policy development. Without recognition of the need to undertake this exercise and commit to a program that is developed with the full cooperation of all impacted parties, an important part of ICANNs multi-stakeholder model will continue to be viewed as dysfunctional by many of those who remain committed to try and deliver coherent and progressive policy within the current structural architecture of the GNSO.<ref name="ncphletter" /></blockquote>
The letter generated discussion first in the SIC, where it shared agenda space with the SIC's ongoing [[ICANN Reviews#2014-15 Standardization Efforts|discussions on the streamlining of ICANN's review processes]]. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the letter was met with minimal enthusiasm:
<blockquote>The SIC discussed that the limitation [on structural review] was to not wind up with a situation that the reviewer would impose their own proposed structure onto the GNSO, as had previously occurred, though issues of structure were clearly anticipated to be highlighted within the findings. The SIC also discussed that it was important for the GNSO community to understand that it remains empowered to try to determine if there is a better structure that will serve its needs.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-bsic-2015-02-06-en Meeting Minutes - Structural Improvement Committee], February 6, 2015</ref></blockquote>
The committee proposed to draft a letter to that effect to the NCPH - however, at the next meeting no such draft had emerged. Instead, with the draft report from Westlake in hand, the committee decided that "as the changing environment of the GNSO was part of the findings, concerns with specific recommendations and methodology at this point are best handled through the public comment process and through the working group."<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-bsic-2015-04-25-en Meeting Minutes, Structural Improvement Committee], April 25, 2015</ref> The task of responding to the NCPH fell to board chair Steve Crocker, who sent an email in May 2015.<ref name="crockerletter">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-ncph-participants-06may15-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - Steve Crocker to NCPH], May 6, 2015</ref> Noting that "the objective of the GNSO Review is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components," the email proposed a conversation on the issue at [[ICANN 53]] in Buenos Aires.<ref name="crockerletter" /> It does not appear that that conversation occurred, at least not in a public session.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule-full.html ICANN 53 Archive - Full Schedule]</ref> The topic was briefly mentioned at the board's meeting with the [[Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group]].<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule/tue-board-ncsg.html ICANN 53 Archive - Board Meeting with the NCSG], June 23, 2015</ref> The topic was not addressed at the Public Forum.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule/thu-public-forum.html ICANN 53 Archive - Public Forum], June 25, 2015</ref>
==Independent Examiner Draft Report==
==Independent Examiner Draft Report==