Second GNSO Organizational Review: Difference between revisions
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
==Independent Examiner Draft Report== | ==Independent Examiner Draft Report== | ||
[[Westlake | [[Westlake Consulting] 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=== | ||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
* Recommendation 6: That the GNSO record and regularly publish statistics on WG participation (including diversity statistics). | * Recommendation 6: That the GNSO record and regularly publish statistics on WG participation (including diversity statistics). | ||
* Recommendation 7: That Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies (Cs) explore and implement ways to engage more deeply with community members whose first language is other than English, as a means to overcoming language barriers. | * Recommendation 7: That Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies (Cs) explore and implement ways to engage more deeply with community members whose first language is other than English, as a means to overcoming language barriers. | ||
* Recommendation 12: That ICANN assess the feasibility of providing a real-time | * Recommendation 12: That ICANN assess the feasibility of providing a real-time transcribing service in audio conferences for prioritised PDP WGs | ||
* Recommendation 19: As strategic manager rather than a policy body the GNSO Council should continue to focus on ensuring that a WG has been properly constituted, has thoroughly fulfilled the terms of its charter and has followed due process. | * Recommendation 19: As a strategic manager rather than a policy body the GNSO Council should continue to focus on ensuring that a WG has been properly constituted, has thoroughly fulfilled the terms of its charter and has followed due process. | ||
* Recommendation 23: That the GNSO Council and SGs and Cs adhere to the published process for applications for new constituencies. That the ICANN Board in assessing an application satisfy itself that all parties have followed due process. Subject to the application meeting the conditions, the default outcome should be that a new Constituency is admitted. | * Recommendation 23: That the GNSO Council and SGs and Cs adhere to the published process for applications for new constituencies. That the ICANN Board in assessing an application satisfy itself that all parties have followed due process. Subject to the application meeting the conditions, the default outcome should be that a new Constituency is admitted. | ||
* Recommendation 25: That the GNSO Council commission the development of, and implement, guidelines to provide assistance for groups wishing to establish a new Constituency. | * Recommendation 25: That the GNSO Council commission the development of, and implement, guidelines to provide assistance for groups wishing to establish a new Constituency. | ||
| Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
* Recommendation 13: That ICANN evaluate one or more alternative decision support systems and experiment with these for supporting WGs. | * Recommendation 13: That ICANN evaluate one or more alternative decision support systems and experiment with these for supporting WGs. | ||
* Recommendation 14: That the GNSO further explores PDP ‘chunking’ and examines each potential PDP as to its feasibility for breaking into discrete stages. | * Recommendation 14: That the GNSO further explores PDP ‘chunking’ and examines each potential PDP as to its feasibility for breaking into discrete stages. | ||
* Recommendation 15: That the GNSO continues current PDP Improvements Project initiatives to address timeliness of the PDP. | * Recommendation 15: That the GNSO continues current PDP Improvements Project initiatives to address the timeliness of the PDP. | ||
* Recommendation 16: That a policy impact assessment (PIA) be included as a standard part of any policy process. | * Recommendation 16: That a policy impact assessment (PIA) be included as a standard part of any policy process. | ||
* Recommendation 17: That the practice of Working Group self-evaluation becomes standard at the completion of the WG’s work; and that these evaluations should be published and used as a basis for continual process improvement in the PDP. | * Recommendation 17: That the practice of Working Group self-evaluation becomes standard at the completion of the WG’s work; and that these evaluations should be published and used as a basis for continual process improvement in the PDP. | ||
| Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
* Recommendation 29: That new members of WGs and newcomers at ICANN meetings be surveyed to determine how well their input is solicited and accepted by the community, and that the results be published and considered by the GNSO Council at its next meeting. | * Recommendation 29: That new members of WGs and newcomers at ICANN meetings be surveyed to determine how well their input is solicited and accepted by the community, and that the results be published and considered by the GNSO Council at its next meeting. | ||
* Recommendation 30: That the GNSO develop and implement a policy for the provision of administrative support for SGs and Cs; and that SGs and Cs annually review and evaluate the effectiveness of administrative support they receive. | * Recommendation 30: That the GNSO develop and implement a policy for the provision of administrative support for SGs and Cs; and that SGs and Cs annually review and evaluate the effectiveness of administrative support they receive. | ||
* Recommendation 31: That the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on GAC Early Engagement in the GNSO Policy Development Process continue its two | * Recommendation 31: That the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on GAC Early Engagement in the GNSO Policy Development Process continue its two workstreams as priority projects. As a part of its work it should consider how the GAC could appoint a non-binding, non-voting liaison to the WG of each relevant GNSO PDP as a means of providing timely input. | ||
====Transparency==== | ====Transparency==== | ||