[gnso-review-dt] Survey questions: rproposed changes

[Gomes, Chuck]

Thanks Philip.  Your input is outstanding.  I added some comments and suggestion using the Word redline function.

The more I think about this, the more I think it would be much better if we provided a separate survey for those who want to respond to questions about a specific Group.  If they want to do so for more than one group, they could fill out separate surveys for each one.  I think this would also make the overall format of the survey much simpler.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of BRG
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 6:15 AM
To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Survey questions: rproposed changes

Hi everyone,
Let me say I think the starting point and breadth of the survey is excellent. This is no easy task.

Please find attached a number of proposed changes to the survey.
The changes in part reflect my role as a previous Names Council chair, GNSO council member, Constituency member, and working party member of the 2008 GNSO council reform. I tried to think through how I would manage in answering the questions, and where I failed, have proposed changes.

I have proposed a new section for NomCom as this may help with responses putting all the relevant questions in one place. NomCom appointees are a different flavour to other groups, and the questions need to reflect this.

I have also expanded a bit the final section - where I have added Chuck's substantive proposals - and indicated support to his other comments.

In doing our work, I have reviewed the answers this group got from the SIC about structure. It is relevant also for us to remember the Board's original September resolution (below) on the review. The Board expected the review to be forward looking and we should fulfil that.

Philip
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2013-09-28-en

In its resolution<https://www.myicann.org/gnso-review?language=es> of 28 September 2013 the ICANN Board stated:
"The expansion of the TLD space has increased the number and variety of stakeholders participating in GNSO policy making and a review needs to take place on schedule to examine whether the current model meets the needs of a new generation of stakeholders.

GNSO Structure is unlikely to accommodate the anticipated new stream of stakeholders resulting from the expansion of the TLD space. The GNSO Review will be an important vehicle for considering and addressing this issue. The unbalance that is already occurring needs to be addressed by the GNSO Review. "







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140701/27d4f067/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO survey 2014 v2 with Gomes input.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 95232 bytes
Desc: GNSO survey 2014 v2 with Gomes input.doc
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140701/27d4f067/GNSOsurvey2014v2withGomesinput.doc>