14,927
edits
Changes
→ccNSO Review
On August 29, 2019, [[Meridian Institute]] (MI) released the final report of its review of the ccNSO. The review asked whether 1) the ccNSO has a continuing purpose in ICANN; 2) structural or operational changes would improve the ICANN body's effectiveness; and 3) ccNSO is accountable to all stakeholders. To answer these questions, MI conducted 45 targeted stakeholder semi-structured
On August 29, 2019, [[Meridian Institute]] (MI) released the final report of its review of the ccNSO. The review asked whether 1) the ccNSO has a continuing purpose in ICANN; 2) structural or operational changes would improve the ICANN body's effectiveness; and 3) ccNSO is accountable to all stakeholders. To answer these questions, MI conducted 45 targeted stakeholder semi-structured
interviews, administered an online survey resulting in 78 complete responses from 111 individuals, observed [[ICANN 63]] and [[ICANN 64]], and gathered feedback from the [[Review Working Party]] (RWP), at [[ICANN 64]] and [[ICANN 65]], and the [[Public Comment]] proceedings.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccnso-review-assessment-recs-final-29aug19-en.pdf CcNSO Review Executive Summary (p. 6)]</ref>
interviews, administered an online survey resulting in 78 complete responses from 111 individuals, observed [[ICANN 63]] and [[ICANN 64]], and gathered feedback from the [[Review Working Party]] (RWP), at [[ICANN 64]] and [[ICANN 65]], and the [[Public Comment]] proceedings.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccnso-review-assessment-recs-final-29aug19-en.pdf CcNSO Review Executive Summary (p. 6)]</ref>
===Review Findings===
{| class="wikitable"
! Issue !! Recommendation 1 !! Recommendation 2 !! Recommendation 3
|-
| Continuing purpose || Generate materials that articulate the value of theccNSO to potential, new, and current members || ||
|-
| More participation, diversity, and leadership needed in WG/Committees || Amend Annex B of the Guidelines to say that the Call for nominations, Selection Process, and Selection Criteria shall employ a 1/3 quota system for individuals with < 3 years|| Make a roster of volunteers and their contact information || Standardize the process for nominating/appointing WG Chairs
|-
| IANA Naming Function Review Team || Bylaws should allow the 3 ccNSO seats to be geographically diverse and membership-neutral || ||
|-
| CcNSO Council || Limit the number of consecutive terms a Councilor can serve, with an option for a waiver if needed (the 2010 ccNSO Review included this recommendation, but it was not adopted then due to lack of feasibility across all regions) || ||
|-
| CcNSO Meetings Programme Committee || Small regional group discussions are needed, followed by small group topical discussions to encourage more participation || ICANN should provide real-time scribing of ccNSO meetings ||
|-
| Onboarding || Translate ccNSO course on the ICANN Learn portal into most common languages || Streamline the mentorship program || include newcomer resources on the website
|-
| Accountability || Immediately update the website, which is the most outdate of all SO/ACs || CcNSO Council should adhere to council practice guidelines || Future Independent Examiners should have access to archived mailing lists and be able to join as an observer to the mailing lists<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccnso-review-assessment-recs-final-29aug19-en.pdf Ccnso Review Report Recommendations (p.p. 59-62)]</ref>
|}
==More Information==
==More Information==