3,197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 135:
Line 135: − + Line 180:
Line 180: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Final Report
==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, in response to public comment, many of the recommendations were substantially changed 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===
| That ICANN define “cultural diversity” (possibly by using birth language); and regularly publish this along with geographic, gender and age group metrics, at least for the GNSO Council, SGs, Cs and WGs.
| That ICANN define “cultural diversity” (possibly by using birth language); and regularly publish this along with geographic, gender and age group metrics, at least for the GNSO Council, SGs, Cs and WGs.
|}
|}
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.
==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:
# ease of implementation;
# cost of implementation;
# alignment with strategic plan;
# impact on other work or groups;
# whether and what type of additional information would be needed to implement; and
# priority of the recommendation.<ref name="feastable">[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56138570 GNSO2 Workspace - Final Recommendations - Feasibility & Prioritization], last updated August 12, 2016</ref>
The raw scores were combined, and further discussion among the working group allowed the group to sort the recommendations into four categories: WP suggests adoption; WP agrees and work is underway; WP agrees with the intent and suggests modification of recommendation language; and 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" />
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}