Versions Compared

Version Old Version 22 New Version Current
Changes made by

Charla Shambley

Charla Shambley

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

General Observations

The Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives Department (MSSI) developed a survey which was sent to the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review Team.  The objective of the survey was to gather feedback after the Review work concluded.  

...

The survey allowed respondents the opportunity to provide additional comments about improvements, if any, to the ICANN organization support.  Below are the comments received from respondents.  [All comments appear as submitted, without editing.]

The assistance of the MSSI Team cannot be overvalued. Special mention of Lisa Phifer REDACTED
Management of the overage timeline
The CCT Review Team would have gotten off to a quicker start if there had been clearer guidance in the beginning about what data was available and what data was missing with regard to the research areas. It took several months for the CCT Review Team to figure out where data may exist within ICANN (or elsewhere). ICANN Support Staff was fantastic but some ICANN staff members were not very responsive to CCT RT data requests in the beginning. Krista Papac REDACTED, in her prior role, for example, did not respond to multiple requests. Perhaps more internal communication about expectations for ICANN staff to respond and help would be helpful. Every ICANN staff member who was assigned to the CCT RT was fantastic.

It would be helpful for ICANN org to be able to figure out how to encourage broader participation from participants. We were really slowed down by being stuck with just a few people contributing the vast majority of the work.
Staff could probably help with more content and coordination to/from interested groups.

Budget:
The process began with the notion that the team should take more responsibility with respect to the budget but the budget process was not fully discussed. I'm supportive of a team being aware and respectful of the budget but when a process crosses fiscal years, real spending prioritization needs to take place and it didn't.
Process:
Email and the wiki are both fairly ineffective ways to collaborate. The world of collaboration technology has really progressed in the past 5 year and the IT department needs to empower review teams with better collaboration tools.

The most egregious problem was the availability of relevant data and information. Some of that is currently not available in the ICANN organisation but with third parties. Data sharing arrangements with third parties should go a long way to cure this problem.

...

Comments on the assessment of the CCT Review Team. Below are the comments received from respondents.  [All comments appear as submitted, without editing.]
A core group of review team members did nearly all of the work. Some members did not do more than dial in to calls. This was a bit frustrating during some of the more onerous parts of the review. However, the core group worked together really well and the broader group was always collegial and genuinely cared about the issues.
There was a core group that did most of the work, a second tier that contributed from time to time if nudged, and a last category of folks who did very little.  This was somewhat frustrating.
This took way too long, and it was hard to stay in sync with the community over the duration (there was much more engagement early on).
We should have organized around our budget and around community priorities better perhaps so that fewer items were OBE (overtaken by events) in the course of the review. The review perhaps took too long which was also a function of prioritization of activities, particularly outside research that could have been happening in parallel more often.


Additional Comments

Comments on how the review was conducted (what worked well, suggestions for improvements, etc.?), are below.  [All comments appear as submitted, without editing.]
Not to divide the review into 2 separate parallel mini reviews
The core group really did a heavy lift to ensure that the commitments of the review team were fulfill and a data-driven assessment of the new gTLD program occurred
There was a separation between the information sought prior to the review started and the information that the Review Team itself thought would be useful.  This resulted in a very inefficient use of resources, and extended the time needed for this review.  Ideally, the review team would be involved from the start of the process to asses what studies would be useful to carry out its mandate.
We got a good start, but eventually were extremely bogged down with very little progress in the second year of the review.  We probably just should have accepted some limitation in scope and done what we could on the first pass.
It's noted pretty clearly in the final review document but the review is sorely lacking in data in a number of important areas.Data has got to become a bigger priority inside ICANN generally.
Success of these reviews rests on information access and sharing. I find that the substantive analysis rests on discussion. Those discussions work well and advance more quickly to consensus when team members are face-to-face.

...