3,197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 203:
Line 203: + Line 216:
Line 217: + + + + + + + +
→GNSO and Board Action on Final Report
==GNSO and Board Action on Final Report==
==GNSO and Board Action on Final Report==
===Feasibility Assessment===
Upon receipt of the final report, the GNSO Review Working Party (WP) began work developing a Feasibility and Prioritization Report.<ref name="feasexec">[https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/Executive+Summary+to+GNSO+Council GNSO2 Workspace - Feasibility and Prioritization Executive Summary], last updated May 9, 2016</ref> The working group conducted a survey of its membership, asking for members to score each recommendation on:
Upon receipt of the final report, the GNSO Review Working Party (WP) began work developing a Feasibility and Prioritization Report.<ref name="feasexec">[https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/Executive+Summary+to+GNSO+Council GNSO2 Workspace - Feasibility and Prioritization Executive Summary], last updated May 9, 2016</ref> The working group conducted a survey of its membership, asking for members to score each recommendation on:
# ease of implementation;
# ease of implementation;
* do not implement.
* do not implement.
The scores of the recommendations in each category were factored in to create a priority order for each set of recommendations. The more factors weighed in the recommendation's favor (easy to implement, low cost, strategically aligned, dependency free, no additional information required, and high priority in the opinion of the WP members), the higher the score.<ref name="feastable" />
The scores of the recommendations in each category were factored in to create a priority order for each set of recommendations. The more factors weighed in the recommendation's favor (easy to implement, low cost, strategically aligned, dependency free, no additional information required, and high priority in the opinion of the WP members), the higher the score.<ref name="feastable" />
The working party rejected three recommendations: Recommendation 21 (regularly study trends in gTLDs to identify policy needs and affected stakeholders); Recommendation 23 (all constituencies should have seats on the GNSO Council); and Recommendation 32 (define "cultural diversity" and regularly report on diversity and demographics of GNSO membership).<ref name="feastable" /> They identified three high priority recommendations for implementation. Two recommendations received the highest possible score from the WP: Recommendation 6, that the GNSO record and regularly publish statistics on GNSO participation (including diversity statistics); and Recommendation 26, requiring Statements of Interest for any member of the GNSO Council, an executive committee of an SG or constituency, and any working group.<ref name="feastable" /> The other high priority recommendations were designated "WP agrees and work is underway," with recommendations for further GNSO action to ensure that the recommendation was fully implemented.
The GNSO Council adopted the WP's Feasibility and Prioritization Report in April 2016, with a minor modification to one of the low priority recommendations.<ref>[https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201604 GNSO Workspace - Council Resolutions], April 2016</ref>
===Board Approval===
At its meeting in May 2016, the Organizational Effectiveness Committee (previously the SIC) agreed to submit Westlake's final report, along with the feasibility and prioritization report, to the ICANN Board for action at its June meeting.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-oec-2016-05-15-en Meeting Minutes, Organizational Effectiveness Committee], May 15, 2016</ref> The board accepted the report and the GNSO's feasibility assessment in June 2016.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-06-25-en#2.e Resolution of the Board], June 25, 2016</ref>
===Implementation===
In July, the GNSO Council adopted a draft charter<ref>[https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-11jul16-en.pdf GNSO Workspace - Draft Charter, GNSO2 Review], July 11, 2016</ref> for the implementation working group (IWG) and put out a call for volunteers.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-07-27-en ICANN.org Announcement - Call for Volunteers for GNSO2 IWG], July 27, 2016</ref> The first meeting of the IWG was convened in September 2016, and work began on sorting implementation into phases.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/2016-09-29+GNSO+Review+Working+Group Meeting Minutes, GNSO2 Review Working Group], September 29, 2016</ref>
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}