Final Recommendations - Feasibility & Prioritization

A survey was set up to gather feedback and assess feasibility on the 36 recommendations in the Final Report published by Westlake Governance. Members of the GNSO Review Working Party were asked to complete the survey to assist in determining prioritization of the recommendations. The recommendations were categorized according to the following:

Working Party suggests adoption of this recommendation

Working Party is in agreement and flags that work is already underway

Working Party agrees with intent and suggests modification to recommendation language

Do not implement

				Working Party Revised Priority/Score ⁽²⁾		Working Party Responses Provided in Survey (Survey Monkey) ⁽¹⁾
Rec	Independent Examiner's Final Recommendation	Comments & Notes from GNSO Review Working Party	GNSO Review WP Recommendation Language (yellow recs only)	WP Revised Priority	WP Revised Score⁽³⁾	WP-Ease of Implementation	WP-Cost of Implementation	WP-Align with Strategic Plan	WP-Impact Groups/Work ⁽⁴⁾	WP-Additional Info? ⁽⁵⁾	Survey Priority
1	That the GNSO develop and monitor metrics to evaluate the ongoing effectiveness of current outreach strategies and pilot programmes with regard to GNSO Working Groups (WGs).	Need strategic goals, objectives, and KPIs - themes around problems that we want to solve. Should measure the shared effectiveness between ICANN and community.		Med	3	Medium	Low	Yes	Yes	No	Medium
2	That the GNSO develop and fund more targeted programmes to recruit volunteers and broaden participation in PDP WGs, given the vital role volunteers play in Working Groups and policy development.	Create in-depth program should be developed; stronger volunteer drive that includes metrics to capture volunteers based on outreach efforts		Med	2	Hard	High	Yes	Yes	No	Medium
3	That the GNSO Council reduce or remove cost barriers to volunteer participation in WGs.	Overlap with other rec; GNSO Council should not determine how finances are allocated to WG members; what are cost barriers (time and costs?)?; training (wiki for example); identify cost barriers.	That the GNSO Council reduce time barriers to volunteer participation and consider ways enhance participation remotely without the need for travel expenditures.	Med	1-2	Hard	High	Yes	Yes	Yes/No	Medium
4	That the GNSO Council introduce non-financial rewards and recognition for volunteers.	No financial rewards - such as travel funding.		Low	4	Easy	Low	No opinion	No	No	Low
5	That, during each WG self-assessment, new members be asked how their input has been solicited and considered.			Med	5	Easy	Low	Yes	No	No	Medium
6	That the GNSO record and regularly publish statistics on WG participation (including diversity statistics).			High	6	Easy	Low	Yes	No	No	High
7	That Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies (Cs) engage more deeply with community members whose first language is other than English, as a means to overcoming language barriers.	Include summaries in multiple languages; combine with other similar recs; further discussions with reps from SGs and Cs together and see what needs are before the WP makes a recommendation.	That Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies (Cs) strive to overcome language barriers by participating in the WG established under Recommendation 35.	Med	1	Hard	High	Yes	Yes	Yes	Medium
8	That WGs should have an explicit role in responding to implementation issues related to policy they have developed.	Agree but work is already done elsewhere. Chuck: The already approved Policy & Implementation WG recommendations cover this. Ongoing GNSO action item: ensure it happens in all future policy implementation efforts.		High	4-5	Easy/Med	Low	Yes	Yes	No	High
9	That a formal Working Group leadership assessment programme be developed as part of the overall training and development programme.	Refine recommendation to note that it should develop a needs assessment for WG leaders.		Med	2	Medium	Medium	Yes	Yes	No	Medium
10	That the GNSO Council develop criteria for WGs to engage a professional facilitator/moderator in certain situations.	What does it mean to "engage"?; could be costly; develop criteria such as using an internal facilitator; should review existing pilot program already underway and that additional criteria be developed.		Med	4	Easy	Low	Yes/No	Yes/No	No	Medium
11	That the face-to-face PDP WG pilot project be assessed when completed. If the results are beneficial, guidelines should be developed and support funding made available.	Has been done for two years. Need to evaluate. Chuck: GNSO action items: i) Develop guidelines; ii) encourage support funding in the ICANN budget.		Med	3	Easy	High	Yes	Yes	No	Medium
12	That ICANN assess the feasibility of providing a real-time transcripting service in audio conferences for WG meetings.	Connect with work already done with ALAC		Med	4	Easy	High	Yes	No	No	Medium
13	That the GNSO Council evaluate and, if appropriate, pilot a technology solution (such as Loomio or similar) to facilitate wider participation in WG consensus-based decision making.	WP believes in continuous improvement; no specific tool is being recommended; tool must meet need that is currently not being met.		Med	1	Medium	Medium	No opinion	No opinion	Yes	Medium
14	That the GNSO further explores PDP ‘chunking’ and examines each potential PDP as to its feasibility for breaking into discrete stages.	Allow GNSO flexibility to determine when chunking (or phases) is appropriate; needs refinement.		Med	3	Medium	Low	Yes/no opinion	Yes	No	Medium
15	That the GNSO continues current PDP Improvements Project initiatives to address timeliness of the PDP.	Already being done. Chuck: GNSO action items: ensure that efforts to improve the timeliness of PDPs continue.		High	4	Medium	Low	Yes	Yes	No	High
16	That a policy impact assessment (PIA) be included as a standard part of any policy process.	Already in the PDP manual. Have no analytical framework to do this. What is being measured? Chuck: GNSO action items: i) Develop an analytical framework for assessing policy impacts; ii) determine what should be measured and corresponding metrics.		High	3-4	Medium	Low/Med	Yes	Yes	No	High
17	That the practice of Working Group self-evaluation be incorporated into the policy development process; and that these evaluations should be published and used as a basis for continual process improvement in the PDP.			Med	5	Easy	Low	Yes	No/No opinion	No	Medium
18	That the GNSO Council evaluate post implementation policy effectiveness on an ongoing basis (rather than periodically as stated in the current GNSO Operating Procedures); and that these evaluations are analysed by the GNSO Council to monitor and improve the drafting and scope of future PDP Charters and facilitate the effectiveness of GNSO policy outcomes over time.	Define at the start of implementation, the assessment period is established. How should GNSO council evaluate implemented policies? Aligns with dmpm. Chuck: The Working Party supports this recommendation. GNSO action items: i) Change the PDP Guidelines to make post-implementation policy effectiveness evaluation an ongoing rather than a periodic process and to include an assessment period at the start of the implementation process; ii) develop guidelines for how implementation of policies should be evaluated.		High	3	Med/Hard	Medium	Yes	Yes	No	High
19	As strategic manager rather than a policy body the GNSO Council should continue to focus on ensuring that a WG has been properly constituted, has thoroughly fulfilled the terms of its charter and has followed due process.	Work is already being done.		Low	5	Easy	Low	Yes	No	No	Low
20	That the GNSO Council should review annually ICANN’s Strategic Objectives with a view to planning future policy development that strikes a balance between ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and the GNSO resources available for policy development.	Modify rec - input from GNSO should go into the Strategic Planning process.	That the GNSO Council should participate in developing ICANN’s Strategic Objectives and plan future policy development that aligns the Strategic Objectives with GNSO resources.	Low	3	Medium	Low	Yes	Yes	No	Low
21	That the GNSO Council should regularly undertake or commission analysis of trends in gTLDs in order to forecast likely requirements for policy and to ensure those affected are well-represented in the policy-making process.	This recommendation is not well phrased and does not compare to what is in the Final Report; additionally, the GNSO Review Working Party does not feel that it is appropriate to implement the recommendation at this time.		N/A - Low		Medium	High	Yes/No	Yes	No	Do not implement
22	That the GNSO Council develop a competency-based framework, which its members should utilise to identify development needs and opportunities.	Reword recommendation: develop a framework to identify training needs on policy development process so that members have appropriate skills and background to participate effectively in the policy development process. This training is not intended to address technical issues.	That the GNSO Council develop a technical competency-based expectation of its members and provide training on the policy development process.	Low	1	Hard	High	No opinion	Yes	No	Low
23	In order to support ICANN's multi-stakeholder model, all Cs should have seats on the GNSO Council, allocated equally (as far as numerically practicable) by their SGs.			N/A - Low		Hard	Low	Yes	Yes	No	Do not implement
24	That the GNSO Council and SGs and Cs adhere to the published process for applications for new Constituencies. That the ICANN Board in assessing an application satisfy itself that all parties have followed the published process, subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is admitted. That all applications for new Constituencies, including historic applications, be published on the ICANN website with full transparency of decision-making.	Partly done. May need to be easier to find. Stephanie thinks that this is not being done and this should be done at the start. Chuck: Some in the Working Party believe this is already being done; some disagree. If it is being done, it should be done at the beginning of the process. Regardless, the Working Party believes that this recommendation will require some due diligence on the part of the GNSO. GNSO action items: i) Determine whether new Constituency application processes are clearly posted and easily accessible, ii) determine what steps are taken to ensure compliance with those processes and whether those steps are adequate; iii) determine if all Constituency applications, including historic ones, are publicly posted along with full transparency of the decision-making process; iv) determine whether or not there is a presumption that a new Constituency should be admitted if all requirements are met and if such a presumption is appropriate; v) determine what process the Board uses to evaluate new Constituency applications and whether they are ensuring process compliance; vi) make recommendations for any modifications to the process, if any.		Med	3	Hard	Low	Yes	Yes/No	No	Medium
25	That the GNSO Council commission the development of, and implement, guidelines to provide assistance for groups wishing to establish a new Constituency.	Guidance already exist; assistance is already made available. Chuck: The Working Party believes that guidance already exists and that assistance is already made available but suggests that the effectiveness and ease of finding the guidance and obtaining assistance be evaluated to see if improvements may be in order. GNSO action items: i) Evaluate the effectiveness and accessibility of guidance for new Constituency applications; ii) recommend improvements to the guidance and the available assistance as appropriate.		Low	3-5