/
Draft Recommendation 30

Draft Recommendation 30

Owned by Charla Shambley
Last updated: Oct 01, 2015

Draft Recommendation 30

That the GNSO develop and implement a policy for the provision of administrative support for SGs and Cs; and that SGs and Cs annually review and evaluate the effectiveness of administrative support they receive.

Working Party (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness): CG - Accept with modification: I support Marika's modification.
Staff (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness):
  • Accept As-Is
  • Accept With modification
  • Reject

Rationale:

MK: Accept with modification. It should probably say 'that ICANN develop and implement' unless this recommendation is intended to change the current policy and support provided by ICANN to SG/Cs?

Basis for Assessment: 
Work in Progress:In development (supported by SO/AC Engagement Team led by Rob Hoggarth)
Expected Completion Date for Work in Progress: 
Milestones: 
Responsibility:Staff

Public Comments Received

Comment #

Submitted By

Affiliation

Comment

Recommendation 30 (Continuous Development): That the GNSO develop and implement a policy for the provision of administrative support for SGs and Cs; and that SGs and Cs annually review and evaluate the effectiveness of administrative support they receive.

34

Paul Diaz

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group

(Support)

71

Osvaldo Novoa

ISPCP

(Support) The ISPCP viewed this requirement as urgent.

125

Will Hudson

Google

If adopted would add greater accountability to the policy development process, increase metrics­driven policy decisions, and increase the efficacy of the process by leveraging the services of professional moderators, especially in circumstances where working group members may be conflicted. Additionally, we believe it is crucial that the GAC be involved earlier in the process.

184

Laura Covington, J. Scott Evans, Marie Pattullo

Business Constituency

The BC supports this recommendation although we would also insist on transparent and cost-efficient funding and equal treatment of all SGs and Cs.

220

Stephanie Perrin

NCUC/NCSG

We support this initiative.

267

Greg Shatan

IPC

(Support) Until very recently the IPC had no administrative support from ICANN, and after two brief periods with staff members serving in secretariat roles, is once again without any such support. The support provided was a significant benefit and support to the IPC leadership and membership. We look forward to receiving it again. Based on our experience, a more stable and redundant system of Secretariat support must be implemented. The discouraging track record of ICANN’s failure to deliver on its commitments to provide reliable support strongly suggests that ICANN reconsider its consistent refusal to allocate funding to constituencies to procure their own administrative support services, subject to appropriate accounting and auditing safeguards.

304

Amr Elsadr

 

I agree with this recommendation, however this should be a decision of the GNSO.

341

Olivier Crepin-Leblond

ALAC

(Support) The ALAC fully supports this recommendation as it has first hand experience that good provision  of administrative support enhances volunteer motivation.