Difference between revisions of "Second GNSO Organizational Review"

From ICANNWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 32: Line 32:
 
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.<ref name="draftrep" /> 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.<ref name="draftrep" /> In all, there were over 156 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.<ref name="draftrep" /> As Westlake reported:
 
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.<ref name="draftrep" /> 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.<ref name="draftrep" /> In all, there were over 156 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.<ref name="draftrep" /> As Westlake reported:
 
<blockquote>In retrospect this approach was less than ideally efficient:
 
<blockquote>In retrospect this approach was less than ideally efficient:
−
<ol style="lower-alpha">
+
<ol type="lower-alpha">
 
<li> 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.</li>
 
<li> 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.</li>
 
<li> As a result of feedback we received after the launch of the 360o Assessment, we were made aware that we needed to examine the role of GNSO Working Groups in more detail than the 360o Assessment had provided. We therefore developed and launched a Supplementary Working Group survey that was posted after the close of the main 360o 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.</li>
 
<li> As a result of feedback we received after the launch of the 360o Assessment, we were made aware that we needed to examine the role of GNSO Working Groups in more detail than the 360o Assessment had provided. We therefore developed and launched a Supplementary Working Group survey that was posted after the close of the main 360o 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.</li>
−
<li> 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 360o 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.</li>
+
<li> 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 360o 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.<ref name="draftrep" /></li>
−
</ol><ref name="draftrep" /></blockquote>
+
</ol></blockquote>
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
{{reflist}}
 
{{reflist}}

Revision as of 16:42, 19 June 2021

The Second GNSO Organizational Review (GNSO2) was initiated in 2014 and completed in 2016, with the implementation of improvements continuing through January 2019.[1]

Background

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]

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.[3] The proposal received eight comments,[4] seven of which were strongly in favor of initiating the review as soon as possible.[5] 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.[5] Upon review of the comments, the SIC determined that it should propose a start date of 2014 to the ICANN Board.[6] 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."[7]

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[8] to a working session of the GNSO regarding the upcoming review.[9] Notably, Plzak emphasized that the review would take the first question - whether the GNSO should continue to exist - as a given.[9]

In April 2014, ICANN posted its RFP for an independent examiner to conduct the review.[10] The RFP included submission guidelines and documents for vendors to use in submitting their proposals.[10] The SIC then hosted a webinar on May 7, 2014, discussing the intent and scope of the GNSO2 review.[11] 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.[11]

360 Assessment

GNSO2 was notable for the addition of a "360-degree Assessment" of the GNSO's activity and effectiveness.[12] 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.[11]

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.[12] The review cycle anticipated an effectiveness self-assessment in 2018, to prepare for the next Article 4.4 review.[12]

Independent Examiner Findings and Recommendations

Westlake Governance Ltd was selected to perform the GNSO2 assessment in June 2014.[13] Westlake submitted its draft report for public comment in May 2015.[1]

Methodology

The Westlake team's methodology "expanded well beyond" the proposed scope in the RFP.[14] 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).[14]

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.[14] 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.[14] In all, there were over 156 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.[14] 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 360o Assessment, we were made aware that we needed to examine the role of GNSO Working Groups in more detail than the 360o Assessment had provided. We therefore developed and launched a Supplementary Working Group survey that was posted after the close of the main 360o 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 360o 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.[14]

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 ICANN.org - GNSO Organizational Review Dashboard
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 ICANN Bylaws - Article 4.4
  3. ↑ ICANN.org Announcement - Potential Postponement of the GNSO Review, July 15, 2013
  4. ↑ ICANN.org - Public Comment Proceeding: Potential Postponement of the GNSO Review, posted July 15, 2013, comment period extended to September 6, 2013]
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Staff Report on Public Comment Proceeding, GNSO Review, September 2013
  6. ↑ Minutes of the Meeting of the Structural Improvements Committee, September 27, 2013
  7. ↑ Resolution of the Board, September 28 2013
  8. ↑ Presentation Slides - GNSO Review Working Session, March 22, 2014
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Transcript of Working Session - GNSO Review, March 22, 2014
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 ICANN.org Announcement - Request for Proposals, GNSO2, April 23, 2014
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 ICANN.org Announcement - Webinar Briefing about GNSO2, April 23, 2014 (recordings available)
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 GNSO2 Webinar Slides, May 7, 2014 (PDF)
  13. ↑ ICANN.org Announcement - Westlake Governance Appointed to Conduct GNSO2 Review, June 23, 2014
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 Draft Report of Independent Examiner - GNSO2, May 29, 2015
Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/index.php?title=Second_GNSO_Organizational_Review&oldid=1320834"