[council] Draft response to recommendations in GNSO review
Hello All,
Attached are the recommendations from the external review, and a draft
response from the GNSO Council for the consideration of the Council.
Regards,
Bruce
Recommendation 1: The Council has made a significant contribution to
other ICANN core values such as outreach, bottom-up consensus based
policy development, geographical diversity and transparency. It has
endeavoured to make good use of the ICANN meetings to conduct outreach
activities with other ICANN organizations and with the broader internet
community. The Council should plan to expand and enhance these
activities.
Council response: The Council will continue to review ways to improve
outreach. At the Cape Town meeting the Council introduced a GNSO Public
Forum to present more in-depth information on current policy issues and
seek public input as part of the policy development process.
Recommendation 2: The appointment of liaisons is a good step in building
links with other parts of the ICANN structure. Again consideration
needs to be given to the best way that these liaisons can be used to
raise awareness of Council issues. The crafting of a "role description"
or "partnership agreement" may assist with setting clear expectations
and maximizing outcomes.
Council response: The Council has encouraged the appointment of liaisons
to the GNSO (e.g ALAC, cctlds, GAC), but would like to see more
reciprocal liaisons where members of Council could act as liaisons to
some of these other groups. The Council agrees that the crafting of a
role descriptions and agreements that set out the goals of liaisons
between specific parts of the ICANN srtucture would be useful.
Recommendation 3: While it is healthy that the Council has
representation from four of the ICANN regions, the Council should
develop a plan for increasing representation so that all regions are
covered
Council response: The Council doesn't have any direct control over
appointments to Council. Each constituency independently elects
representatives from geographically diverse regions. The ICANN
Nominating Committee process is currently the primary mechanism whereby
gaps in the geographic coverage of the Council can be addressed.
Recommendation 4: Furthermore, consideration needs to be given to ways
in which people from non-English speaking backgrounds can participate
more actively in Council. This may involve making greater use of face
to face time at ICANN meetings (where communication is easier) in
addition to telephone conferences. The availability of translations of
key documents would also assist, but this would need careful
consideration as it could easily become a very expensive exercise.
Council response: The Council acknowledges that it is difficult for
people from non-English speaking backgrounds to participate actively in
teleconferences. The Council is investigating augementing
teleconferences with messaging technogoglies that would allow Council
members to see text summaries of the discussion in real-time, and also
be able to send text messages for viewing by other Council members.
Recommendation 5: The Council should seek approval from the Board for a
revised policy Development Process. The alternative process should have
the following elements:
* Scoping phase (history of the issue, key questions, contractual
issues, terms of reference, timelines, milestones including deliverables
and check points for legal opinion) which should be done as quickly as
feasible, probably within the timeframe of the current issues report
* Policy work (including research, consultation with
constituencies, periods for public comment) with timelines set in the
scoping phase according to the complexity of the task
* Regular reporting to Council on milestones as established in the
scoping phase
* A final report and public comment period as in the current PDP
* A Council vote as in the current PDP
Council response: The Council supports the recommendation of the
external reviewer for more flexibility in the timelines of policy
development.
Recommendation 6: The Council should develop a formal process for
seeking input from other ICANN organizations for each of the policies it
is developing.
Council response: The Council through its liaisons does request input
from other ICANN organisations, and the most effective way of doing for
each organisation is subject to ongoing development.
Recommendation 7: In addition to these changes, the Council should
consider other measures to speed up the consensus process, including the
greater use of time at ICANN meetings to discuss issues face to face,
and possibly the use of facilitators to move more quickly to
understanding of issues and building of consensus.
Council response: The Council has been moving progressively to
increasing the amount of face-to-face meetings during the ICANN
meetings. Appropriate preparation of written materials prior to
face-to-face meetings is important. The GNSO Council seeks to achieve a
balance between policy development work and other events during ICANN
meetings, and the cost and time involved for participants to attend for
a longer period of time.
Recommendation 8: ICANN should move to put in place a high calibre staff
policy support person at the earliest possible opportunity.
Council response: The Council agrees with this recommendation.
Recommendation 9: The Chair of the GNSO Council and VP Supporting
Organizations should oversee an effective handover from the current
staff support person to ensure that lessons learnt over the past year
are not lost.
Council response: The Council will work with the VP Supporting
Organisations regarding managing the induction and orientation process
for the new staff members.
Recommendation 10: The Chair of the GNSO Council and the VP Supporting
Organizations should establish a service level agreement between the
GNSO Council and ICANN management that specifies the amount and type of
support that is to be provided. Where possible, this should include
measures (eg turnaround times for legal opinion, delivery of reports by
agreed dates, minutes posted within a certain number of days). The
Chair should consult the Council to ensure the targets meet the needs of
the Council and its taskforces. The VP Supporting Organizations and
Chair of GNSO Council should meet quarterly to review performance
measures and report these to the President.
Council response: The Council will work with the VP Supporting
Organisations to establish clear expectations regarding staff support.
Recommendation 11: The Council should work with the ICANN General
Counsel to establish clear communication channels for the request for
and provision of legal opinion. At a minimum this should include
detailed legal input at the scoping phase of each PDP. Wherever
possible, "check points" for further legal input should be established
as part of the scoping study.
Council response: The Council will work with the VP Supporting
Organisations regarding managing the interface to the legal resources of
ICANN.
Recommendation 12: The Council needs to ensure the viability of
implementation of each of the policy recommendations that it makes to
the Board.
Council response: The Council agrees with this recommendation.
Recommendation 13: ICANN needs to put in place a compliance function to
monitor compliance with policies.
Council response: The Council agrees with this recommendation.
Recommendation 14: The Council needs to work with ICANN operational
staff to develop a compliance policy with graded penalties.
Council response: The Council agrees with this recommendation.
Recommendation 15: Council needs to have a built in review of the
effectiveness of policies in the policy recommendations that it makes to
the Board
Council response: The Council agrees with this recommendation. In
recent policies such as transfers, the Council has built in formalised
reviews of the effectiveness of the policy.
Recommendation 16: The GNSO Council should utilize the Ombudsman and any
reports produced by the Ombudsman as source of systematic analysis of
complaints and therefore of issues that may need to be addressed through
the PDP.
Council response: The GNSO Council believes that reports from both the
independent Ombudsman as well as the operational ICANN staff are
important for analysing complaints and the effectiveness of new
policies.
Recommendation 17: The Council should continue to explore ways in which
the Nominating Committee members can add value to the Council process.
Council response: The GNSO Council agrees with this recommendation.
Recommendation 18: The Council should draft "role descriptions" for the
Nominating Committee which describe the skills, expertise (especially
technical expertise) and attributes that are needed for the Nominating
Committee members to be optimally effective members of the Council.
Council response: The GNSO Council agrees with this recommendation.
Recommendation 19: The Council is working well with three
representatives from each constituency. No one who is involved with the
Council perceives that having three representatives hinders the workings
of the Council. The Board should change the bylaws to put in place
three representatives from each constituency.
Council response: The GNSO Council agrees with this recommendation.
Recommendation 20: The GNSO Council should overhaul the website so that
it better meets the needs of all who are interested in the work of the
GNSO.
Council response: The GNSO Council will help provide requirements and
suggestions to ICANN staff for website design.