Changes

==Initiation and RFP==

==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<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48345814/GNSO%20Review%202014%20-%20Singapore%20Presentation.pdf Presentation Slides - GNSO Review Working Session], March 22, 2014</ref> to a working session of the GNSO regarding the upcoming review.<ref name="49session">[http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/sat-gnso-working/transcript-gnso-review-22mar14-en.pdf Transcript of Working Session - GNSO Review], March 22, 2014</ref> Plzak emphasized that the review would take the first question - whether the GNSO should continue to exist - as a given.<ref name="49session" /> In addition, he described the "improvements" to the review process that were being made to focus the efforts of the independent examiner:

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<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48345814/GNSO%20Review%202014%20-%20Singapore%20Presentation.pdf Presentation Slides - GNSO Review Working Session], March 22, 2014</ref> to a working session of the GNSO regarding the upcoming review.<ref name="49session">[http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/sat-gnso-working/transcript-gnso-review-22mar14-en.pdf Transcript of Working Session - GNSO Review], March 22, 2014</ref> Plzak emphasized that the review would take the first question - whether the GNSO should continue to exist - as a given.<ref name="49session" /> In addition, he described the "improvements" to the review process that were being made to focus the efforts of the independent examiner:

<blockquote>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.<ref name="49session" /></blockquote>

<blockquote>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 for 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.<ref name="49session" /></blockquote>

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.<ref name="49session" />

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.<ref name="49session" />

In April 2014, ICANN posted its RFP for an independent examiner to conduct the review.<ref name="rfp">[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/request-for-proposal-for-review-of-generic-names-supporting-organization-gnso-23-4-2014-en ICANN.org Announcement - Request for Proposals, GNSO2], April 23, 2014</ref> The RFP included submission guidelines and documents for vendors to use in submitting their proposals.<ref name="rfp" /> The SIC then hosted a webinar on May 7, 2014, discussing the intent and scope of the GNSO2 review.<ref name="webinar">[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/webinar-briefing-about-the-upcoming-review-of-the-generic-names-supporting-organization-gnso-23-4-2014-en ICANN.org Announcement - Webinar Briefing about GNSO2], April 23, 2014 (recordings available)</ref> 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.<ref name="webinar" />  

In April 2014, ICANN posted its RFP for an independent examiner to conduct the review.<ref name="rfp">[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/request-for-proposal-for-review-of-generic-names-supporting-organization-gnso-23-4-2014-en ICANN.org Announcement - Request for Proposals, GNSO2], April 23, 2014</ref> The RFP included submission guidelines and documents for vendors to use in submitting their proposals.<ref name="rfp" /> The SIC then hosted a webinar on May 7, 2014, discussing the intent and scope of the GNSO2 review.<ref name="webinar">[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/webinar-briefing-about-the-upcoming-review-of-the-generic-names-supporting-organization-gnso-23-4-2014-en ICANN.org Announcement - Webinar Briefing about GNSO2], April 23, 2014 (recordings available)</ref> 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.<ref name="webinar" />  

At the time that GNSO2 was initiated, the [[Organizational Effectiveness Committee|Structural Improvements Committee]] (as it was then known) was engaged in a discussion regarding the [[ICANN Reviews#2014-15 Standardization Efforts|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.<ref>For more background on the SIC's efforts at the time, see ICANNWiki's [[ICANN Reviews#2014-15 Standardization Efforts|ICANN Reviews]] article</ref>

At the time that GNSO2 was initiated, the [[Organizational Effectiveness Committee|Structural Improvements Committee]] (as it was then known) was engaged in a discussion regarding the [[ICANN Reviews#2014-15 Standardization Efforts|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.<ref>For more background on the SIC's efforts at the time, see ICANNWiki's [[ICANN Reviews#2014-15 Standardization Efforts|ICANN Reviews]] article</ref>

===NCPH Objection to Scope, January 2014===

===NCPH Objection to Scope, January 2015===

In January 2014, during the course of the review, the [[Non-Contracted Parties House]] of the GNSO met to discuss a variety of issues relevant to its constituency. Among those issues was the scope and focus of the GNSO2 review. The result was a letter to the ICANN Board regarding the failure of the review to address structural issues.<ref name="ncphletter">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ncph-participants-to-icann-board-16jan15-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - NCPH Letter to ICANN Board], January 16, 2015</ref> In contradiction to Ray Plzak's position, above, the NCPH urged the Board to address the GNSO's structural issues:

In January 2015, during the course of the review, the [[Non-Contracted Parties House]] of the GNSO met to discuss a variety of issues relevant to its constituency. Among those issues was the scope and focus of the GNSO2 review. The result was a letter to the ICANN Board regarding the failure of the review to address structural issues.<ref name="ncphletter">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ncph-participants-to-icann-board-16jan15-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - NCPH Letter to ICANN Board], January 16, 2015</ref> In contradiction to Ray Plzak's position, above, the NCPH urged the Board to address the GNSO's structural issues:

<blockquote>What is required is a thorough review of the current GNSO structure that takes full account of the evolution of the DNS and the interaction that is required between those players who have a major role to play in GNSO policy development. Without recognition of the need to undertake this exercise and commit to a program that is developed with the full cooperation of all impacted parties, an important part of ICANNs multi-stakeholder model will continue to be viewed as dysfunctional by many of those who remain committed to try and deliver coherent and progressive policy within the current structural architecture of the GNSO.<ref name="ncphletter" /></blockquote>

<blockquote>What is required is a thorough review of the current GNSO structure that takes full account of the evolution of the DNS and the interaction that is required between those players who have a major role to play in GNSO policy development. Without recognition of the need to undertake this exercise and commit to a program that is developed with the full cooperation of all impacted parties, an important part of ICANN's multi-stakeholder model will continue to be viewed as dysfunctional by many of those who remain committed to try and deliver coherent and progressive policy within the current structural architecture of the GNSO.<ref name="ncphletter" /></blockquote>

The letter generated discussion first in the SIC, where it shared agenda space with the SIC's ongoing [[ICANN Reviews#2014-15 Standardization Efforts|discussions on the streamlining of ICANN's review processes]]. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the letter was met with minimal enthusiasm:

The letter generated discussion first in the SIC, where it shared agenda space with the SIC's ongoing [[ICANN Reviews#2014-15 Standardization Efforts|discussions on the streamlining of ICANN's review processes]]. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the letter was met with minimal enthusiasm:

<blockquote>The SIC discussed that the limitation [on structural review] was to not wind up with a situation that the reviewer would impose their own proposed structure onto the GNSO, as had previously occurred, though issues of structure were clearly anticipated to be highlighted within the findings. The SIC also discussed that it was important for the GNSO community to understand that it remains empowered to try to determine if there is a better structure that will serve its needs.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-bsic-2015-02-06-en Meeting Minutes - Structural Improvement Committee], February 6, 2015</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>The SIC discussed that the limitation [on structural review] was to not wind up with a situation that the reviewer would impose their own proposed structure onto the GNSO, as had previously occurred, though issues of structure were clearly anticipated to be highlighted within the findings. The SIC also discussed that it was important for the GNSO community to understand that it remains empowered to try to determine if there is a better structure that will serve its needs.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-bsic-2015-02-06-en Meeting Minutes - Structural Improvement Committee], February 6, 2015</ref></blockquote>

The committee proposed to draft a letter to that effect to the NCPH - however, at the next meeting no such draft had emerged. Instead, with the draft report from Westlake in hand, the committee decided that "as the changing environment of the GNSO was part of the findings, concerns with specific recommendations and methodology at this point are best handled through the public comment process and through the working group."<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-bsic-2015-04-25-en Meeting Minutes, Structural Improvement Committee], April 25, 2015</ref> The task of responding to the NCPH fell to board chair Steve Crocker, who sent an email in May 2015.<ref name="crockerletter">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-ncph-participants-06may15-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - Steve Crocker to NCPH], May 6, 2015</ref> Noting that "the objective of the GNSO Review is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components," the email proposed a conversation on the issue at [[ICANN 53]] in Buenos Aires.<ref name="crockerletter" /> It does not appear that that conversation occurred, at least not in a public session.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule-full.html ICANN 53 Archive - Full Schedule]</ref> The topic was briefly mentioned at the board's meeting with the [[Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group]].<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule/tue-board-ncsg.html ICANN 53 Archive - Board Meeting with the NCSG], June 23, 2015</ref> The topic was not addressed at the Public Forum.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule/thu-public-forum.html ICANN 53 Archive - Public Forum], June 25, 2015</ref>

The committee proposed to draft a letter to that effect to the NCPH - however, at the next meeting no such draft had emerged. Instead, with the draft report from [[Westlake Consulting]] in hand, the committee decided that "as the changing environment of the GNSO was part of the findings, concerns with specific recommendations and methodology at this point are best handled through the public comment process and through the working group."<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-bsic-2015-04-25-en Meeting Minutes, Structural Improvement Committee], April 25, 2015</ref> The task of responding to the NCPH fell to board chair Steve Crocker, who sent an email in May 2015.<ref name="crockerletter">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-ncph-participants-06may15-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - Steve Crocker to NCPH], May 6, 2015</ref> Noting that "the objective of the GNSO Review is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components," the email proposed a conversation on the issue at [[ICANN 53]] in Buenos Aires.<ref name="crockerletter" /> It does not appear that that conversation occurred, at least not in a public session.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule-full.html ICANN 53 Archive - Full Schedule]</ref> The draft report was addressed in multiple sessions held by the GNSO and its constituency groups, and attended by Westlake (see below). The topic was also briefly mentioned at the board's meeting with the [[Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group]].<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule/tue-board-ncsg.html ICANN 53 Archive - Board Meeting with the NCSG], June 23, 2015</ref> The topic was not raised at the Public Forum.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule/thu-public-forum.html ICANN 53 Archive - Public Forum], June 25, 2015</ref>

==Independent Examiner Draft Report==

==Independent Examiner Draft Report==

[[Westlake Governance Ltd]] 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" />

[[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===

* 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 transcripting service in audio conferences for prioritised PDP WGs

* 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.

* 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.

* Recommendation 18: That the GNSO Council evaluate post implementation policy effectiveness on an ongoing basis (rather than periodically as stated in the current GNSO Operating Procedures); and that these evaluations are analysed by the GNSO Council to monitor and improve the drafting and scope of future PDP Charters and facilitate the effectiveness of GNSO policy outcomes over time.

* Recommendation 18: That the GNSO Council evaluate post implementation policy effectiveness on an ongoing basis (rather than periodically as stated in the current GNSO Operating Procedures); and that these evaluations are analysed by the GNSO Council to monitor and improve the drafting and scope of future PDP Charters and facilitate the effectiveness of GNSO policy outcomes over time.

* Recommendation 22: That the GNSO should review and implement a revised training and development programme encompassing:

* Recommendation 22: That the GNSO should review and implement a revised training and development programme encompassing:

− Skills and competencies for each Council member

** Skills and competencies for each Council member

− Training and development needs identified

** Training and development needs identified

− Training and development relevant to each Council member

** Training and development relevant to each Council member

− Formal assessment system with objective measures

** Formal assessment system with objective measures

− Continual assessment and review.

** Continual assessment and review.

* 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 work streams 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.

* 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====

===Public Comment===

===Public Comment===

Comment on the draft report was collected at public sessions during [[ICANN 53]] in Buenos Aires,<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfm2RH8tkCwL.pdf Transcript Excerpts from GNSO Review Sessions at ICANN 53], June 1 2015</ref> as well as via written submission.<ref name="draftpcrep">[https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en Public Comment Proceeding - GNSO2 Draft Report], Initiated June 1, 2015</ref> Fifteen written comments were received during the comment period.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-gnso-review-draft-26aug15-en.pdf Staff Report on Public Comment Proceeding], August 26, 2015</ref> Westlake "found many comments provided during the Public Comment Period of great value, and elements of our Final Report were modified as a result."<ref name="finalrep">[https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-summary-15sep15-en.pdf Final Report of Independent Examiner, GNSO2], September 15, 2015</ref>

Comment on the draft report was collected at public sessions during [[ICANN 53]] in Buenos Aires,<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfm2RH8tkCwL.pdf Transcript Excerpts from GNSO Review Sessions at ICANN 53], June 1 2015</ref> as well as via written submission.<ref name="draftpcrep">[https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en Public Comment Proceeding - GNSO2 Draft Report], Initiated June 1, 2015</ref> The topic of structure was addressed multiple times, including Westlake's update to the GNSO during its working session on June 21.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule/sun-gnso-working/transcript-gnso-review-21jun15-en.pdf ICANN 53 Archive - GNSO Review Update, GNSO Working Session Transcript], June 21, 2015</ref> The GNSO's meeting with the board during the same working session was focused largely on implementation and process of the [[New gTLD Round]], and there was little mention of the Review.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule/sun-gnso-working/transcript-gnso-board-21jun15-en.pdf ICANN 53 Archive - Transcript, GNSO Meeting with the ICANN Board], June 21, 2015</ref> At a session with the Commercial Stakeholders Group, [[Richard Westlake]] explained the team's approach in response to the large number of comments received about structure:

 

 

 

Fifteen written comments were also received during the comment period.<ref name="staffrep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-gnso-review-draft-26aug15-en.pdf Staff Report on Public Comment Proceeding], August 26, 2015</ref> Among those written submissions, consensus statements from the BC, the IPC, the ISPCP, and the NOPC, as well as a non-consensus statement from NCUC & NCSG members, all reiterated complaints that were raised in Buenos Aires about the scope and focus of the review.<ref name="listserv">[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/ ICANN.org Listserv Archive - Comments, GNSO2]</ref> Comments submitted by individuals and external organizations echoed those concerns. [[Klaus Stoll]] stated that "As the report does not address the underlying structures and relationships, the recommendations can only seen as bad aids [''sic''] and as markers to an ongoing and deeper discussion."<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00010.html ICANN.org Listserv Archive - Personal Comments of Klaus Stoll], July 30, 2015</ref> [[Edward Morris]], then a member of the GNSO Council, submitted a comment that began in part "...I look forward to working with those in the greater GNSO community and beyond to create an even more robust, effective and efficient governance model than the one we now have. To accomplish that goal the first thing we need to do is to completely disregard the entire Westlake report."<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00013.html ICANN Listserv Archive - Personal Comment of Edward Morris], July 31, 2015</ref> The Brand Registry Group also called out the review as being inconsistent with ICANN's bylaws and the board's directives regarding the review.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00000.html ICANN.org Listserv Archive - BRG response to GNSO2], July 16, 2015</ref> A handful of commenters, including Google, [[INTA]], [[APAC Space]], [[RySG]] and ISOC Kolkata, did not take issue with the scope of the report (although RySG did note that it was clear that there were structural issues to be addressed).<ref name="listserv" />

 

Westlake "found many comments provided during the Public Comment Period of great value, and elements of our Final Report were modified as a result."<ref name="finalrep">[https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-summary-15sep15-en.pdf Final Report of Independent Examiner, GNSO2], September 15, 2015</ref>

==Final Report==

==Final Report==

Westlake submitted its final report on September 15, 2015.<ref name="finalrep" /> The total number of recommendations in the final report remained steady at thirty-six. However, some recommendations were substantially changed, consolidated, or refined. An overview of the changes follows.

Westlake submitted its final report on September 15, 2015.<ref name="finalrep" /> The total number of recommendations in the final report remained steady at thirty-six. However, some recommendations were substantially changed, consolidated, or refined. An overview of the changes follows.

===Changed Recommendations in the Final Report===

'''Changed Recommendations in the Final Report'''

{| class="wikitable"  

{| class="wikitable"  

|-

|-

Although the report notes that the public comments on the draft report guided the team's changes to the final report, there are few indications of how (or which) public comments influenced the modification of recommendations.  

Although the report notes that the public comments on the draft report guided the team's changes to the final report, there are few indications of how (or which) public comments influenced the modification of recommendations.  

The majority of recommendations remained unchanged or incorporated minor modifications. The changes to the recommendations largely altered the recommended approach, rather than the underlying strategy or theme.  

The majority of recommendations remained unchanged or incorporated minor modifications. The changes to the recommendations largely altered the recommended approach, rather than the underlying strategy or theme.

==GNSO and Board Action on Final Report==

==GNSO and Board Action on Final Report==

Upon receipt of the final report, the GNSO Review Working Party (WP) began work developing a Feasibility and Prioritization Report.<ref name="feasexec">[https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/Executive+Summary+to+GNSO+Council GNSO2 Workspace - Feasibility and Prioritization Executive Summary], last updated May 9, 2016</ref> The working group conducted a survey of its membership, asking for members to score each recommendation on:

Upon receipt of the final report, the GNSO Review Working Party (WP) began work developing a Feasibility and Prioritization Report.<ref name="feasexec">[https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/Executive+Summary+to+GNSO+Council GNSO2 Workspace - Feasibility and Prioritization Executive Summary], last updated May 9, 2016</ref> The working group conducted a survey of its membership, asking for members to score each recommendation on:

# ease of implementation;  

# ease of implementation;  

* do not implement.  

* do not implement.  

The scores of the recommendations in each category were factored in to create a priority order for each set of recommendations. The more factors weighed in the recommendation's favor (easy to implement, low cost, strategically aligned, dependency free, no additional information required, and high priority in the opinion of the WP members), the higher the score.<ref name="feastable" />

The scores of the recommendations in each category were factored in to create a priority order for each set of recommendations. The more factors weighed in the recommendation's favor (easy to implement, low cost, strategically aligned, dependency free, no additional information required, and high priority in the opinion of the WP members), the higher the score.<ref name="feastable" />

==References==

==References==

{{reflist}}

{{reflist}}