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.
...
| 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. |
...