Changes

==Initiation and RFP==

==Initiation and RFP==

Although the GNSO2 dashboard indicates that the review process was launched in January 2014, the first substantive documentation of the review comes from [[ICANN 49]] in Singapore, when [[Ray Plzak]] of the SIC gave a presentation<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48345814/GNSO%20Review%202014%20-%20Singapore%20Presentation.pdf Presentation Slides - GNSO Review Working Session], March 22, 2014</ref> to a working session of the GNSO regarding the upcoming review.<ref name="49session">[http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/sat-gnso-working/transcript-gnso-review-22mar14-en.pdf Transcript of Working Session - GNSO Review], March 22, 2014</ref> Plzak emphasized that the review would take the first question - whether the GNSO should continue to exist - as a given.<ref name="49session" /> In addition, he described the "improvements" to the review process that were being made to focus the efforts of the independent examiner:

Although the GNSO2 dashboard indicates that the review process was launched in January 2014, the first substantive documentation of the review comes from [[ICANN 49]] in Singapore, when [[Ray Plzak]] of the SIC gave a presentation<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48345814/GNSO%20Review%202014%20-%20Singapore%20Presentation.pdf Presentation Slides - GNSO Review Working Session], March 22, 2014</ref> to a working session of the GNSO regarding the upcoming review.<ref name="49session">[http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/sat-gnso-working/transcript-gnso-review-22mar14-en.pdf Transcript of Working Session - GNSO Review], March 22, 2014</ref> Plzak emphasized that the review would take the first question - whether the GNSO should continue to exist - as a given.<ref name="49session" /> In addition, he described the "improvements" to the review process that were being made to focus the efforts of the independent examiner:

<blockquote>For those of you that endured the last review of the GNSO, the contractor was able to basically go out and figure out what he wanted to talk about, spend time figuring out what the organization is supposed to be doing, and then go out and charge around. And that was true not only the GNSO, but true of the rest of the reviews, so we’re not going to let that occur this time so we’re going to keep him focused.<ref name="49session" /></blockquote>

<blockquote>For those of you that endured the last review of the GNSO, the contractor was able to basically go out and figure out what he wanted to talk about, spend time figuring out what the organization is supposed to be doing, and then go out and charge around. And that was true not only for the GNSO, but true of the rest of the reviews, so we’re not going to let that occur this time so we’re going to keep him focused.<ref name="49session" /></blockquote>

The RFP, according to Plzak, identified narrowly-structured areas of inquiry specific to "organizational effectiveness," so that the independent examiner had just one question to answer. It appears, but was not explicitly stated, that the predetermination of the GNSO's continued existence within ICANN was also a means of avoiding an examination of, or proposed alterations to, the structure of the GNSO.<ref name="49session" />

The RFP, according to Plzak, identified narrowly structured areas of inquiry specific to "organizational effectiveness," so that the independent examiner had just one question to answer. It appears, but was not explicitly stated, that the predetermination of the GNSO's continued existence within ICANN was also a means of avoiding an examination of, or proposed alterations to, the structure of the GNSO.<ref name="49session" />

In April 2014, ICANN posted its RFP for an independent examiner to conduct the review.<ref name="rfp">[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/request-for-proposal-for-review-of-generic-names-supporting-organization-gnso-23-4-2014-en ICANN.org Announcement - Request for Proposals, GNSO2], April 23, 2014</ref> The RFP included submission guidelines and documents for vendors to use in submitting their proposals.<ref name="rfp" /> The SIC then hosted a webinar on May 7, 2014, discussing the intent and scope of the GNSO2 review.<ref name="webinar">[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/webinar-briefing-about-the-upcoming-review-of-the-generic-names-supporting-organization-gnso-23-4-2014-en ICANN.org Announcement - Webinar Briefing about GNSO2], April 23, 2014 (recordings available)</ref> The briefing outlined the same scope that Ray Plzak presented at the March working session. [[Avri Doria]] asked during the webinar if the Terms of Reference for the review had been shared or workshopped with the GNSO community. The response was that the working session at ICANN 49 "shared" the scope of the review.<ref name="webinar" />  

In April 2014, ICANN posted its RFP for an independent examiner to conduct the review.<ref name="rfp">[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/request-for-proposal-for-review-of-generic-names-supporting-organization-gnso-23-4-2014-en ICANN.org Announcement - Request for Proposals, GNSO2], April 23, 2014</ref> The RFP included submission guidelines and documents for vendors to use in submitting their proposals.<ref name="rfp" /> The SIC then hosted a webinar on May 7, 2014, discussing the intent and scope of the GNSO2 review.<ref name="webinar">[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/webinar-briefing-about-the-upcoming-review-of-the-generic-names-supporting-organization-gnso-23-4-2014-en ICANN.org Announcement - Webinar Briefing about GNSO2], April 23, 2014 (recordings available)</ref> The briefing outlined the same scope that Ray Plzak presented at the March working session. [[Avri Doria]] asked during the webinar if the Terms of Reference for the review had been shared or workshopped with the GNSO community. The response was that the working session at ICANN 49 "shared" the scope of the review.<ref name="webinar" />  

===NCPH Objection to Scope, January 2015===

===NCPH Objection to Scope, January 2015===

In January 2015, 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:

In January 2015, 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>

<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 ICANN's 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:

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>

<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 draft report was addressed in multiple sessions held by the GNSO and its constituency groups, and attended by Westlake (see below). The topic was also 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 raised 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>

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 Consulting]] 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 draft report was addressed in multiple sessions held by the GNSO and its constituency groups, and attended by Westlake (see below). The topic was also 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 raised 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==