3,197
edits
Changes
no edit summary
==Review of Prior Assessments==
==Review of Prior Assessments==
The working group focused on three previous reviews in its information-gathering process: the Patrick Sharry review of 2004; the GNSO's own self-assessment, performed as part of the preliminary work to commission Sharry's report; and the review prepared by the London School of Economics Public Policy Group in 2006.<ref name="background" />
The working group focused on three previous reviews in its information-gathering process: the Patrick Sharry review of 2004; the GNSO Council's own self-assessment, performed as part of the preliminary work to commission Sharry's report; and the review prepared by the London School of Economics Public Policy Group in 2006.<ref name="background" />
===GNSO Self-Assessment===
===GNSO Council Self-Assessment===
The GNSO, in preparing the Terms of Reference for the its 2004 review, conducted a self-review process. The self-review described a number of policy development successes, including updates to the transfer policy, WHOIS, and deletion policy.<ref name="gnsosr">[https://gnso.icann.org/reviews/gnso-review-sec2-22dec04.pdf 2004 GNSO Review - Terms of Reference and Self-Assessment], December 22, 2004</ref> The GNSO made three categories of recommendations:
The GNSO Council, in preparing the Terms of Reference for its 2004 review, conducted a self-review process. The self-review described a number of policy development successes, including updates to the transfer policy, WHOIS, and deletion policy.<ref name="gnsosr">[https://gnso.icann.org/reviews/gnso-review-sec2-22dec04.pdf 2004 GNSO Review - Terms of Reference and Self-Assessment], December 22, 2004</ref> The GNSO made three categories of recommendations:
# Recommendations re: the ICANN Bylaws: maintain GNSO Council compostion of 3 representatives from each constituency; amend the policy development process bylaws to state that PDP timelines are flexible, and may be set and revised by the GNSO Council to reflect the work being considered and status updates from the working group.
# Recommendations re: the ICANN Bylaws: maintain GNSO Council compostion of 3 representatives from each constituency; amend the policy development process bylaws to state that PDP timelines are flexible, and may be set and revised by the GNSO Council to reflect the work being considered and status updates from the working group.
# Recommendations re: staff support: multiple requests for staff support around the policy development process, task forces, and work of the GNSO Council; make legal staff available to the GNSO Council, task forces, and subcommittees, and in particular for review of policy recommendations and other policy statement for compliance with bylaws and contractual obligations; and create monitoring, compliance, and complaint policies related to gTLDs.
# Recommendations re: staff support: multiple requests for staff support around the policy development process, task forces, and work of the GNSO Council; make legal staff available to the GNSO Council, task forces, and subcommittees, and in particular for review of policy recommendations and other policy statement for compliance with bylaws and contractual obligations; and create monitoring, compliance, and complaint policies related to gTLDs.
===2004 Review by Patrick Sharry===
===2004 Review by Patrick Sharry===
Sharry, a strategic planning and change management consultant,<ref>[http://www.decision.com.au/about-patrick.html People + Decisions - About Patrick Sharry]</ref> reviewed the GNSO Council, without reference to the self-assessment described above, using interviews with GNSO Council members and others, as well as a review of policy and process documentation prepared by the GNSO for that purpose.<ref name="sharryrep">[https://gnso.icann.org/en/reviews/gnso-review-sec1-22dec04.pdf GNSO Archive - GNSO Review by Patrick Sharry], December 22, 2004</ref> The report reached many of the same conclusions as the GNSO's self-assessment. Sharry found, in particular, that ICANN staff support of GNSO activities fell "well short of the standards outlined in the bylaws."<ref name="sharryrep" /> The review also found substantial gaps between the adoption of policy proposals and the implementation of those policies, with minimal attention devoted to compliance or tracking of the success of the implementation.<ref name="sharryrep" /> Sharry provided recommendations for improving the GNSO's core functions, but was also complementary of both the Council's commitment and dedication, as well as its leadership.<ref name="sharryrep" />
Sharry, a strategic planning and change management consultant,<ref>[http://www.decision.com.au/about-patrick.html People + Decisions - About Patrick Sharry]</ref> reviewed the GNSO Council specifically, without reference to the self-assessment described above, using interviews with GNSO Council members and others, as well as a review of policy and process documentation prepared by the GNSO for that purpose.<ref name="sharryrep">[https://gnso.icann.org/en/reviews/gnso-review-sec1-22dec04.pdf GNSO Archive - GNSO Review by Patrick Sharry], December 22, 2004</ref> The report reached many of the same conclusions as the GNSO's self-assessment. Sharry found, in particular, that ICANN staff support of GNSO activities fell "well short of the standards outlined in the bylaws."<ref name="sharryrep" /> The review also found substantial gaps between the adoption of policy proposals and the implementation of those policies, with minimal attention devoted to compliance or tracking of the success of the implementation.<ref name="sharryrep" /> Sharry provided recommendations for improving the GNSO's core functions, but was also complementary of both the Council's commitment and dedication, as well as its leadership.<ref name="sharryrep" />
As part of its background documentation for the broader community, the improvements implementation team summarized the similarities between the GNSO's self assessment and Sharry's report:
As part of its background documentation for the broader community, the improvements implementation team summarized the similarities between the GNSO's self assessment and Sharry's report:
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" />
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 shared some common findings with Sharry's review and the GNSO Council 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" />
In focusing on the entirety of the supporting organization, rather than the GNSO Council only, the LSE report diverged from the 2004 assessments in its attention to the overall structure, composition, and representativeness of the GNSO and its constituencies. In the executive summary of the report, the team described its concerns about 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>
<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 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" />
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* Establish term limits for GNSO Councilors. Create stronger protections against the non-disclosure of interests.<ref name="lserep1" />
The LSE Report was published for public comment in autumn 2006, and received a total of six comments.<ref name="gnsopc">[https://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements/ ICANN.org Listserv Archive - GNSO Improvements]</ref> The comments were largely complementary of the LSE's efforts but varied widely in their support or non-support of particular recommendations.<ref name="lsepc" />
==Working Group Drafts and Public Comment==
The Working Group summarized its work synthesizing the three reviews and listed an initial set of recommendations in a "Draft Working Document," released in advance of [[ICANN 29]] in San Juan.<ref name="draftwd">[https://archive.icann.org/en/announcements/draft-wg-bgc-gnso-improvements-18jun07.pdf Draft Working Document of the BGC GNSO1 Working Group], June 18, 2007</ref> The working document presented findings and (in the case of the LSE Review) summaries of public comments received, and produced a series of preliminary recommendations on the issues of constituency structure, the GNCO Council, the GNSO's policy development process, the adoption of a working group model, and staff/cross-community outreach and interaction. It also listed questions for discussion at ICANN 29 regarding each of those issues.<ref name="draftwd" />
The working document was the subject of a public forum at [[ICANN 29]],<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/sanjuan2007/node/25.html ICANN.org Archive - ICANN 29 Public Forum], June 25, 2007</ref> and also received written public comments.<ref name="gnsopc" /> Participants at the public forum expressed support for "certain, but not all" of the recommendations contained in the working document. The working group's summary of forum comments identified three points of agreement:
# Both constituency operations and restructuring can benefit from improvements, but changes in operations should precede changes in the structure.
# Formalizing a working group model as the focal point for policy development could enhance the policy development process by making it more inclusive and representative and – ultimately – more effective and efficient.
# The GNSO Council should move away from being a legislative body focused on voting and become a more strategic entity with strengthened management and oversight of the policy development process.<ref name="forumpc">[https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-public-forum-summary.pdf GNSO Improvements - Summary of Public Forum], July 1, 2007</ref>
The working group issued a draft final report in October 2007,<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-15oct07.pdf GNSO Improvements Draft Report], October 15, 2007</ref> and held a workshop on the draft report at [[ICANN 30]] in Los Angeles.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/losangeles2007/node/44.html ICANN 30 Workshop - GNSO Improvements], October 29, 2007</ref> The draft report refined recommendations related to the broad topics of adopting a working group model, reforming the policy development process, improvements in process for the GNSO Council, and altering the structure of constituencies and participation within constituencies. Staff and cross-community interaction and outreach were also adressed. The workshop was well-attended and drew a number of comments on the recommendations being proposed, as well as the overall process of the working group.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-la-workshop-29oct07.pdf Summary of BGC Working Group Workshop on GNSO Improvements], October 29, 2017</ref> There was also a public comment period for the draft report, with eight comments submitted.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gnso-improvements-2007-10-19-en GNSO Improvements - Public Comment Proceeding], October 19, 2007</ref>
The working group's final report was submitted to the board in February 2008.<ref name="dashboard" /> The report concludes:
<blockquote>Our deliberations have achieved near consensus on a comprehensive set of recommendations that addresses five main areas:
* Formalizing a working group model to become the focal point for policy development and enhance the PDP by making it more inclusive and representative, and – ultimately – more effective and efficient.
* Revising the PDP to make it more effective and responsive to ICANN’s policy development needs, bringing it in-line with the time and effort actually required to develop policy, and making it consistent with ICANN’s existing contracts (including, but not limited to, clarifying the appropriate scope of GNSO “consensus policy” development).
* Moving the GNSO Council away from being a legislative body heavily focused on voting towards becoming a smaller, more focused strategic entity, composed of four broad stakeholder groups, with strengthened management and oversight of the policy development process, the elimination of weighted voting and the imposition of term limits.
* Enhancing constituency procedures and operations to become more transparent, accountable and accessible; and
* Improving GNSO coordination with other ICANN bodies.<ref name="finalrep">[https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf Final Report of the BGC Working Group on GNSO Improvements], February 3, 2008</ref></blockquote>
The report contained a total of nineteen action items within these five categories.<ref name="finalrep" /> As the working group was a component of the board process, the action items were mainly directives to the GNSO Council or delegations of tasks to ICANN staff. Some of the directives involved an eventual return to the board for action - for example, amendments to the [[ICANN Bylaws]].
On February 15, 2008, the board accepted the report and approved its recommendations, subject to a final public comment period.<ref name="impres">[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2008-02-15-en#_Toc64545918 Resolutions the Board], February 15, 2008</ref> During the passing of the public comment period, the board directed ICANN staff to "draft a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO, begin implementation of the non-contentious recommendations, and return to the Board and community for further consideration of the implementation plan."<ref name="impres" />
==Implementation==
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}