Changes

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 draft report was addressed in [[#Draft Report#Public Comment|multiple sessions]] of the GNSO and constituency groups attended by Westlake. 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>

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 draft report was addressed in [[#Independent Examiner Draft Report#Public Comment|multiple sessions]] of the GNSO and constituency groups attended by Westlake. 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==