Second GNSO Organizational Review

The Second GNSO Organizational Review (GNSO2) was initiated in 2014 and completed in 2016, with the implementation of improvements continuing through January 2019.

Background

Article 4.4 of the ICANN Bylaws requires periodic review of all supporting organizations and advisory committees, as well as the Nominating Committee. 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.

The First GNSO Organizational Review, initiated in 2008, was a substantial and far-reaching undertaking that included the development of the two-house structure of the GNSO Council. Implementation of improvements from GNSO1 extended into the middle of 2012. This led the Structural Improvements Committee (as it was then known) to seek public comment on a proposal to defer GNSO2. The proposal received eight comments, seven of which were strongly in favor of initiating the review as soon as possible. Some commenters noted that the independent examiner's assessment of the GNSO dated to 2006, with prior reviews of the GNSO Council (as well as the GNSO Council's self-assessment) being performed even earlier. Upon review of the comments, the SIC determined that it should propose a start date of 2014 to the ICANN Board. At its regular meeting on September 28, 2013, the board passed a resolution instructing the SIC to initiate GNSO2: "Resolved (2013.09.28.09), that the Board directs the SIC to schedule the review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which is mandated by ICANN Bylaws Article IV, Section 4, to commence in 2014, and that preparations for this Review commence as soon as feasible."

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 to a working session of the GNSO regarding the upcoming review. Plzak emphasized that the review would take the first question - whether the GNSO should continue to exist - as a given. In addition, he described the "improvements" to the review process that were being made to focus the efforts of the independent examiner:

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.

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.

In April 2014, ICANN posted its RFP for an independent examiner to conduct the review. The RFP included submission guidelines and documents for vendors to use in submitting their proposals. The SIC then hosted a webinar on May 7, 2014, discussing the intent and scope of the GNSO2 review. 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.

360 Assessment

GNSO2 was notable for the addition of a "360-degree Assessment" of the GNSO's activity and effectiveness. This was intended to focus on GNSO Council members and other stakeholders to provide a self-assessment of the GNSO's effectiveness. It appears that this was intended to limit the number and breadth of interviews required to gather information for the independent examiner.

Proposed Timeline

At the webinar, staff presented a timeline that anticipated the final report by February 2015, with implementation of improvements beginning in the spring of 2015. The process of budgeting for and launching improvements was anticipated to take a year, with feedback and refinement of improvements continuing through 2018. The review cycle anticipated an effectiveness self-assessment in 2018, to prepare for the next Article 4.4 review.

Influence of Review Improvement Discussions within the SIC

At the time that GNSO2 was initiated, the Structural Improvements Committee (as it was then known) was engaged in a discussion regarding the standardization and streamlining of reviews. Ray Plzak's observation, above, that independent examiners were "charging around" appeared to be part of the impetus for implementing a standard framework for reviews and closely guiding the activities of the independent examiners. It also appears that GNSO2 was in some ways a pilot project for a new, restrictive, set of guidelines regarding the scope and intent or the review.

Independent Examiner Findings and Recommendations

Westlake Governance Ltd was selected to perform the GNSO2 assessment in June 2014. Westlake submitted its draft report for public comment in May 2015.

Methodology

The Westlake team's methodology "expanded well beyond" the proposed scope in the RFP. The team utilized the following approaches:

1. Examination of documentation, records, and reports;
2. Outcomes from the 360-degree Assessment and Supplementary Working Group Surveys;
3. Integration of Assessments from ATRT2; and
4. "Limited" interviews (see below).

The Westlake team encountered some challenges in the information-gathering phase. First, the 360-degree assessment, while widely responded to, did not present sufficient feedback on the effectiveness and operations of working groups within the GNSO. A separate survey was launched specific to working groups, and while the responses received were a useful source of qualitative data, there were not enough responses to draw conclusions on quantitative grounds. There were also a number of "high priority" respondents that did not answer either survey, resulting in a need to increase the number of interviews conducted. In all, there were over 150 completed responses to the initial 360-degree assessment, twenty-five responses from twenty individuals to the follow-up survey on working groups, and forty interviews conducted to both validate findings from the assessments and to provide depth and background. As Westlake reported:

In retrospect this approach was less than ideally efficient:

1. It is almost axiomatic that members of the Working Party are currently active in the GNSO and a significant number of its members have significant experience with ICANN over many years. Not surprisingly, the composition of the Working Party largely reflects ICANN’s and the GNSO’s demographic make-up – most of them would likely be viewed as GNSO ‘insiders’. As a result, issues of concern to ‘outsiders’ and those with little experience in ICANN did not emerge as clearly in the early stages as they did later.
2. As a result of feedback we received after the launch of the 360 Assessment, we were made aware that we needed to examine the role of GNSO Working Groups in more detail than the 360 Assessment had provided. We therefore developed and launched a Supplementary Working Group survey that was posted after the close of the main 360 Assessment. This Supplementary survey gathered some useful information, from a small number of people who completed it, but the number of responses was small (25 responses – including multiple responses from a small number of people who commented on more than one Working Group). The actual number of individuals responding was fewer than 20 so we attempted where possible to cross-check comments against those from people we later interviewed.
3. The 360 Assessment and the Working Group surveys for this review were initially published in English, and ICANN translated both surveys into the five other United Nations languages, posting invitations in all of these languages on the GNSO website. Social media, including communications in the five other UN languages, were deployed consistently to promote the surveys and encourage participation. Despite these efforts and significant promotion of both surveys, we did not receive a single request to send a copy of the survey in any language other than English. We did receive two sets of responses in French, but these were posted to the English language version of the 360 Assessment. We conclude from this that even those respondents had at least a working knowledge of English, in order to understand the statements they were responding to.

Findings

The draft report identified a number of findings that could be clustered into four broad topics: participation and representation; continuous development; transparency; and alignment with ICANN's future. Westlake also incorporated an assessment of the implementation of improvements recommended in GNSO1, finding that most of the recommended improvements had been implemented. Failures in implementation, as well as areas for improvement, generally aligned with the four themes identified by Westlake. The draft report organized Westlake's findings using the framework of GNSO1's recommendations, adding a sixth topic, "Changing Environment," to reflect the new issues and changes that the GNSO could expect to face in the future.

Working Group Model

• The working group model has been effective;
• Staff support for working groups was rated highly;
• A relatively small group of volunteers does the majority of the work;
• Working groups are dominated by English speakers from North America and Europe; and
• Working group involvement in policy implementation is limited.

Policy Development Process

• Opinion is evenly divided regarding the pace of PDPs (too slow or too fast to developed policies);
• Technology support is present but presents separate challenges to efficiency;
• Consistent measurement and evaluation of policy impact is still lacking; and
• The GNSO has not taken steps to align its processes with ICANN's strategic plan.

GNSO Council Restructure

• The Council's function as strategic manager of policy development initiatives should continue to emphasize the proper composition, completion of work, and process of each PDP working group;
• Prioritization of projects and policy efforts remains an important - and under-developed - function of the Council; and
• The effectiveness of the Council is hampered by incomplete implementation of training for Council members.

Enhancing Constituencies

• The GNSO and ICANN Board are perceived to be hostile to new constituency applications;
• The decision-making process for constituency applications is opaque;
• Statements of Interest have not been fully utilized, publicized, or enforced by the various constituencies, and the availability of SoI information is dependent upon research skills; and
• Staff support for constituencies is perceived to vary widely, and some groups and constituencies are unsupported.

Improving Communication and Coordination with ICANN Bodies

• Communication with the Board appears to be excellent; and
• Communication and coordination with other SOs and ACs could be improved.

Changing Environment

• There is a significant absence of geographic and cultural diversity in the make-up of most GNSO structures, and in the Council;
• The GNSO should aim to include the widest practicable community of stakeholders in its processes;
• A global organization must find ways to share the discomfort of global interaction; and
• Substantial barriers to participation exist for non-English speakers.

Recommendations

The draft report presented thirty-six recommendations based on its findings.

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).

Policy Development Process