Jump to content

First GNSO Organizational Review: Difference between revisions

From ICANNWiki
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
JP (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator
3,197 edits
No edit summary
JP (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator
3,197 edits
No edit summary
Line 10: Line 10:
It is notable that the GNSO1 review began with a review of reviews: the GNSO had previously been reviewed by the [[London School of Economics]] Public Policy Group in 2006, and by [[Patrick Sharry]] in 2004.<ref name="dashboard" /> These prior reviews were incorporated into the work process of the GNSO1 Review working group.<ref name="dashboard" />
It is notable that the GNSO1 review began with a review of reviews: the GNSO had previously been reviewed by the [[London School of Economics]] Public Policy Group in 2006, and by [[Patrick Sharry]] in 2004.<ref name="dashboard" /> These prior reviews were incorporated into the work process of the GNSO1 Review working group.<ref name="dashboard" />


==Initiation==
The board assembled a GNSO Review Working Group of the [[Board Governance Committee]], and approved its charter,<ref> in March 2007<ref>[https://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-30mar07.htm#_Toc36876533 Resolution of the Board], March 30, 2007</ref> The working group was  charged to answer the traditional Article 4.4 (as amended at the time) questions: does the GNSO have a continuing purpose within the ICANN structure; and if so, what can be done to improve its effectiveness. The charter document goes further, tasking the working group to develop a "comprehensive proposal" to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO.<ref name="background" GNSO Community Reference - Background on GNSO Improvements], January 9, 2013</ref>
==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" />
===GNSO 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:
# 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.<ref name="gnsosr" />


==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}

Revision as of 19:16, 10 June 2021

The First GNSO Organizational Review (GNSO1) was initiated in 2008, with implementation of improvements continuing throughout 2012.[1]

Background[edit | edit source]

Article 4.4 of the ICANN Bylaws requires periodic review of all supporting organizations and advisory committees, as well as the Nominating Committee.[2] The bylaws state three objectives for the review:

  1. to determine whether that organization, council or committee has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure;
  2. if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness; and
  3. whether that organization, council or committee is accountable to its constituencies, stakeholder groups, organizations and other stakeholders.[2]

Organizational reviews are conducted by independent examiners, selected through a competitive bidding process.[2] The independent examiner works in consultation with a working group assembled by the board, who will act as implementation shepherds once the final report of the independent examiner is submitted.[3] The review parameters are set by the ICANN Board, and those parameters as well as other avenues of inquiry are typically included in the request for proposals (RFP) for independent examiners.[2][3] Reviews can take anywhere from three to five years to complete. The full review process includes seven phases, including the implementation of recommendations from the review.[3] Reviews must be conducted at least every five years, measuring from the date that the final report of the previous review was accepted by the ICANN Board.[3] The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is one of the supporting organizations subject to Article 4.4 review.

It is notable that the GNSO1 review began with a review of reviews: the GNSO had previously been reviewed by the London School of Economics Public Policy Group in 2006, and by Patrick Sharry in 2004.[1] These prior reviews were incorporated into the work process of the GNSO1 Review working group.[1]

Initiation[edit | edit source]

The board assembled a GNSO Review Working Group of the Board Governance Committee, and approved its charter,Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag The working group was charged to answer the traditional Article 4.4 (as amended at the time) questions: does the GNSO have a continuing purpose within the ICANN structure; and if so, what can be done to improve its effectiveness. The charter document goes further, tasking the working group to develop a "comprehensive proposal" to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO.Cite error: Invalid parameter in <ref> tag The GNSO made three categories of recommendations:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.[4]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 ICANN.org - GNSO1 Review Dashboard, last material update on June 23, 2012
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 ICANN Bylaws - Article 4.4
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 ICANN.org - Organizational Reviews
  4. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named gnsosr

Generic Names Supporting Organization. Develops and recommends to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities set forth in the Bylaws (ICANN Bylaws).

Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/index.php?title=First_GNSO_Organizational_Review&oldid=1320410"