From cgomes at Verisign.com Tue Jul 1 00:40:00 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 00:40:00 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: 360 Assessment Draft Mock Up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4938FE83@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> My feedback on questions 50-56 is highlighted in the attached file. I will be traveling until July 12th but will try to call into the meeting if I can; regardless, I will try to participate on the list in the meantime as much as possible so I welcome responses. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2014 8:10 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] 360 Assessment Draft Mock Up Dear All, The latest version of the 360 Assessment Mock Up has been posted on the wiki and is also attached here for your convenience. This is still a working draft intended to gather additional feedback on the following elements: * Introductory language to be included in the communications accompanying the survey invitation * Questions - these questions will be divided into two surveys: general survey and in-depth survey Next steps for the 360 Assessment are as follows. We propose to discuss the timing of these activities at today's meeting and refine the schedule after the Independent Examiner begins the review. 1. Additional discussion and feedback on the substance and wording of introductory language and questions 2. Input from the Independent Examiner 3. Development of a Test 360 Assessment to evaluate functionality and ease of use of the online survey tool 4. Feedback from Working Party on the online survey 5. Launch of survey Thank you and I look forward to seeing you at today's meeting. Larisa Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Gomes feedback on questions 50 to 56.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 18384 bytes Desc: Gomes feedback on questions 50 to 56.docx URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Tue Jul 1 07:47:42 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 00:47:42 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Review Reminder In-Reply-To: <008b01cf94ab$6c76fed0$4564fc70$@dotsportllc.com> References: <69a5bbe999254d3385e3e076bcc1a359@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <008b01cf94ab$6c76fed0$4564fc70$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: Dear Ron, Thank you for your email. The transcript of the GNSO Review meeting held on Sunday 22 June can be found on the GNSO Master calendar here http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jul I have noted your apology for the 10th July, Happy hiking Ron! Kind regards Nathalie From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 11:37 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Review Reminder Dear Jen and colleagues, Unfortunately, on July 10th I will be hiking in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado so I doubt I will have a cell signal. I'm not sure if there was a transcript of the London meeting, but would be grateful to get one so that I might send my comments/thoughts in advance of the call. Otherwise a list of discussion points/action items would be helpful. Awaiting staff advice. Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 13:20 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Review Reminder Hi Everyone, I hope you had safe travels continuing on from London or safely home. I know everyone is likely taking some time off this week, but this is just a reminder, we had discussed holding our next phone meeting on Thursday, July 10 at 10 a.m. eastern time, picking up where our standing time left off. I am dropping in a link below to the wiki where you will find all updates regarding our work. Our goal in the 10th, is to gather feedback from all of you to finalize the questions and we can then mirror our calendar to that of the review process and schedule calls for the next few months as needed ( we had discussed every other week). I look forward to talking with you all on the 10th and wish you safe journeys home! If you have any problems accessing the documents, please let me know. Thanks! Jen https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/GNSO+Review+2014+360+Assessment+Work space jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm, named top u.s. trademark law firm by corp intl 2013 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0 Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0 Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0 Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 864 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 1028 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Tue Jul 1 07:49:06 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 00:49:06 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Review Reminder In-Reply-To: References: <69a5bbe999254d3385e3e076bcc1a359@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Dear Rudi, Thank you for this, if you are not able to join the very beginning of the call, I will mention your delayed arrival during the roll call. Kind regards Nathalie From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rudi Vansnick Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 9:37 PM To: Jen Wolfe Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Larisa B. Gurnick Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Review Reminder I booked the call in my agenda and will be available. Eventually I could be a few minutes late as I have another call (T&T Contact PDP WG) ending normally just at the same time. Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) www.npoc.org rudi.vansnick at npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 Op 30-jun.-2014, om 19:19 heeft Jen Wolfe het volgende geschreven: Hi Everyone, I hope you had safe travels continuing on from London or safely home. I know everyone is likely taking some time off this week, but this is just a reminder, we had discussed holding our next phone meeting on Thursday, July 10 at 10 a.m. eastern time, picking up where our standing time left off. I am dropping in a link below to the wiki where you will find all updates regarding our work. Our goal in the 10th, is to gather feedback from all of you to finalize the questions and we can then mirror our calendar to that of the review process and schedule calls for the next few months as needed ( we had discussed every other week). I look forward to talking with you all on the 10th and wish you safe journeys home! If you have any problems accessing the documents, please let me know. Thanks! Jen https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/GNSO+Review+2014+360+Assessment+Work space jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm, named top u.s. trademark law firm by corp intl 2013 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From philip at brandregistrygroup.org Tue Jul 1 10:15:06 2014 From: philip at brandregistrygroup.org (BRG) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 12:15:06 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Survey questions: rproposed changes In-Reply-To: <69a5bbe999254d3385e3e076bcc1a359@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <69a5bbe999254d3385e3e076bcc1a359@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <2573768D5EDD4F64B7ED01B394BF0BA5@ZaparazziL11> 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO survey 2014 v2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 103936 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Tue Jul 1 13:45:54 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 13:45:54 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Survey questions: rproposed changes In-Reply-To: <2573768D5EDD4F64B7ED01B394BF0BA5@ZaparazziL11> References: <69a5bbe999254d3385e3e076bcc1a359@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <2573768D5EDD4F64B7ED01B394BF0BA5@ZaparazziL11> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493909C1@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> 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 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: -------------- 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: From philip at brandregistrygroup.org Tue Jul 1 15:46:20 2014 From: philip at brandregistrygroup.org (BRG) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 17:46:20 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Survey questions: proposed changes In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493909C1@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <69a5bbe999254d3385e3e076bcc1a359@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <2573768D5EDD4F64B7ED01B394BF0BA5@ZaparazziL11> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493909C1@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <4F5AB40E6A5E408FBA45BACA980B8F54@ZaparazziL11> For the record I am fine with all of Chuck's friendly amendments to my original. Philip -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Mon Jul 7 14:35:00 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 07:35:00 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Working Group Calendar Invitations Message-ID: Dear all, The GNSO Secretariat is happy to announce that they are now going to add calendar invitations to the usual Working Group invitation emails. Therefore, from today onwards, along with the regular email invitation, there will be a calendar invitation attached to the email. This invitation should adapt to all formats of email calendar. Should you wish to test this feature, please proceed as below: 1- Open the attachment and accept the invitation. Please do NOT send the reply back to the sender. 2- Please check calendar invite is in correct slot according to your individual calendar time zone 3- Please email gnso-secs at icann.org with any worry or concern you may have with this feature. We will be sending out emails in a few weeks' time to get member feedback. Thank you! Nathalie GNSO Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Mon Jul 7 20:56:52 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 16:56:52 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Survey questions: rproposed changes In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493909C1@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <69a5bbe999254d3385e3e076bcc1a359@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <2573768D5EDD4F64B7ED01B394BF0BA5@ZaparazziL11> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493909C1@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <024701cf9a25$fd114a70$f733df50$@dotsportllc.com> Dear all, Having read through the transcript of the London face-to-face meeting, as well as the email thread on the list, I would like to commend Philip and Chuck on the most recent draft of survey questions. I support them fully. With regard to the proposed meeting schedule, twice weekly works for me as well. Having said that, apologies for missing the July 10th meeting due to family vacation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 09:46 To: BRG; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Survey questions: rproposed changes 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 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: From terri.agnew at icann.org Thu Jul 10 16:51:54 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 16:51:54 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] MP3 recording GNSO Review committee teleconference 10 July 2014 1400 UTC Message-ID: <02029243df974ab084d76c1e7cda673e@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Review committee Group teleconference held on Thursday 10 July 2014 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-20140710-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jul The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Klaus Stoll Jennifer Wolfe Avri Doria Mike Rodenbaugh Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Chuck Gomes Rudi Vansnick Philip Sheppard Apologies: Ron Andruff ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Larisa Gurnick Matt Ashtiani Lars Hoffmann Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Public archives of the mailing list can be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/ Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Adobe Chat transcript: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the GNSO Review Committee Meeting on 10 July 2014 Jennifer Wolfe:Hello everyone, I'm still trying to get on through the conference line and on hold. Terri Agnew:I have alerted the operator Matt Ashtiani:same here Rudi Vansnick:sorry being late, had just ended the T&T Contact PDP WG call Philip:just joining now Mike Rodenbaugh:yes... Larisa Gurnick:All comments have been shared with Westlake and they are being considered. Philip:thanks larisa Chuck Gomes:I look forward to the test survey Philip:thanks Larisa Avri Doria:i need to get something to pick up those invite. Chuck Gomes:Thannks Jenn & Larisa Philip:Thanks all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Wed Jul 23 16:26:08 2014 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:26:08 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment Update Message-ID: <29dfb4d59928491d8921b2b3696bcf18@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear All, Westlake Governance, the independent examiner conducting the GNSO Review, has developed an online survey, based on the feedback you've provided. Current status Please note that in preparation for the launch of the 360 Assessment, work is still in progress, including the following elements: 1. Introductory communications, including video from Jen, emails and blog. 2. User-friendly means for responders to provide feedback relative to several GNSO Groups, if they wish. 3. Definition of all acronyms and various terms for clarity and appropriate context. 4. Instructions for Question 14 to address the choice of responding to more or fewer questions based on one's familiarity and knowledge of the GNSO. 5. Closing notes at the end of the survey, including next steps. 6. Other items - including those based on your feedback. Online 360 Assessment You can view the latest draft of the online assessment here. The Westlake Governance team will participate in the call tomorrow to update you on their progress and next steps relative to the 360 Assessment, and to respond to your feedback. Next steps Please take the online 360 Assessment and provide your feedback, either during the GNSO Review Working Party scheduled call tomorrow (Thursday, 24 July at 14:00 UTC) or via the survey itself or email, by 29 July 14:00 UTC. * The communication components and online 360 Assessment will be finalized on 30 July. * 360 Assessment will be launched on 4 August. * Ongoing outreach and engagement activities. * Responses will be collected throughout August and into September, if needed to ensure a broad and diverse set of responses. * Westlake Governance will provide regular updates on the number and diversity of the responders. Thank you for your valuable input into this process. Best wishes, Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Wed Jul 23 22:38:50 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:38:50 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment Update In-Reply-To: <29dfb4d59928491d8921b2b3696bcf18@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <29dfb4d59928491d8921b2b3696bcf18@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493B636A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Here is my feedback. Unless I missed it, it was not clear that the responder could stop at any point and continue completing the survey later. There are way too many questions for which the answers require additional written clarification, thereby requiring excessive time to complete the survey. In Question 8, I think the constituencies should be listed separately (e.g., ISCPC, BC, IPC, NCUC, NPOC). Question 14 should allow more than one response. The statement before the comment box assumes that the responder is completing the survey about one main group; that may be true for some and not for others. What should a responder say if they are responding on behalf of the GNSO and all of its components rather that regarding in one part? It is not clear in Question 15 that the responder can respond for more than one group in different questionnaires. For Question 16, the following choice is not worded very well: "Individuals who participate in the activities of the GNSO provide appropriate technical expertise to complete the work of the Group". Not all individuals are expected to provide technical expertise. A better way to work this might be like this: "Appropriate technical expertise is provided to WGs as needed." Also for Question 16, regarding "Individuals who participate in the activities of the GNSO engage sufficiently to complete the work of the Group", some do some don't. The wording of the option is too broad and probably should be reworded. It might be better to reword this sub-question something like this: "Most individuals who participate in the activities of the GNSO engage sufficiently to complete the work of the Group." It took me 34 minutes to complete the survey but I skipped the open ended questions at the end. If I completed the questionnaire for other groups besides the RySG, that time would be multiplied several times. I hope I am wrong, but I am not confident that this 360 review will produce very reliable and useful data. I think we are biting off way too much in one shot. I still think that breaking it down into smaller components would help. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:26 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Richard G A Westlake Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment Update Dear All, Westlake Governance, the independent examiner conducting the GNSO Review, has developed an online survey, based on the feedback you've provided. Current status Please note that in preparation for the launch of the 360 Assessment, work is still in progress, including the following elements: 1. Introductory communications, including video from Jen, emails and blog. 2. User-friendly means for responders to provide feedback relative to several GNSO Groups, if they wish. 3. Definition of all acronyms and various terms for clarity and appropriate context. 4. Instructions for Question 14 to address the choice of responding to more or fewer questions based on one's familiarity and knowledge of the GNSO. 5. Closing notes at the end of the survey, including next steps. 6. Other items - including those based on your feedback. Online 360 Assessment You can view the latest draft of the online assessment here. The Westlake Governance team will participate in the call tomorrow to update you on their progress and next steps relative to the 360 Assessment, and to respond to your feedback. Next steps Please take the online 360 Assessment and provide your feedback, either during the GNSO Review Working Party scheduled call tomorrow (Thursday, 24 July at 14:00 UTC) or via the survey itself or email, by 29 July 14:00 UTC. * The communication components and online 360 Assessment will be finalized on 30 July. * 360 Assessment will be launched on 4 August. * Ongoing outreach and engagement activities. * Responses will be collected throughout August and into September, if needed to ensure a broad and diverse set of responses. * Westlake Governance will provide regular updates on the number and diversity of the responders. Thank you for your valuable input into this process. Best wishes, Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From philip at brandregistrygroup.org Thu Jul 24 12:46:06 2014 From: philip at brandregistrygroup.org (BRG) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:46:06 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment Update In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493B636A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <29dfb4d59928491d8921b2b3696bcf18@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493B636A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <94F62C574F614202BB87ED66FD74630E@ZaparazziL11> Here is my feedback to the draft survey on SurveyMonkey. 1. The responses for a Group option remains confusing. We are trying to conflate different things- SG / Constituencies / Houses and it doesn't work. 2. Working Groups would not seem to fit at all so should not be mentioned in the preamble. 3. I note structural questions have been integrated but I do not see questions the Board wanted about: Are new stakeholders to ICANN represented in the GNSO today? How do we best represent new stakeholders in the GNSO in the future? 4. Its annoying to have to respond to all questions even with a don't know. 5. There should be fewer sub-questions to questions such as 16, 28, 30. In general 5 sub-questions should be enough. Pick the most relevant. Hope this helps Philip -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Thu Jul 24 13:58:25 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:58:25 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment Update In-Reply-To: <94F62C574F614202BB87ED66FD74630E@ZaparazziL11> References: <29dfb4d59928491d8921b2b3696bcf18@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493B636A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <94F62C574F614202BB87ED66FD74630E@ZaparazziL11> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493B6C56@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> I concur with Philip's remarks except that I thought there were a couple questions regarding 3. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of BRG Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 8:46 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake' Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment Update Here is my feedback to the draft survey on SurveyMonkey. 1. The responses for a Group option remains confusing. We are trying to conflate different things- SG / Constituencies / Houses and it doesn't work. 2. Working Groups would not seem to fit at all so should not be mentioned in the preamble. 3. I note structural questions have been integrated but I do not see questions the Board wanted about: Are new stakeholders to ICANN represented in the GNSO today? How do we best represent new stakeholders in the GNSO in the future? 4. Its annoying to have to respond to all questions even with a don't know. 5. There should be fewer sub-questions to questions such as 16, 28, 30. In general 5 sub-questions should be enough. Pick the most relevant. Hope this helps Philip -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Thu Jul 24 14:01:55 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:01:55 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment Update In-Reply-To: <29dfb4d59928491d8921b2b3696bcf18@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <29dfb4d59928491d8921b2b3696bcf18@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <53D111D3.8040802@acm.org> Hi I will probavbly be 30 minutes late for the meeting as I am currently in another meeting. I have one comment from my SG so far to offer: I think the survey should provide a definition for what it means by "well- represented". For the question that was something along the lines of "how well represented are commercial / noncommercial users?" I wasn't sure exactly what was being asked. If "well represented" means 'effective at influencing outcomes' or if it means 'the group does well to represent a broad and diverse range of views from within that SG.' So I'd give a different answer depending on what is meant by "well represented". avri On 23-Jul-14 12:26, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote: > Dear All, > > > > Westlake Governance, the independent examiner conducting the GNSO > Review, has developed an online survey, based on the feedback you?ve > provided. > > > > *_Current status_* > > Please note that in preparation for the launch of the 360 Assessment, > work is still in progress, including the following elements: > > 1. Introductory communications, including video from Jen, emails > and blog. > > 2. User-friendly means for responders to provide feedback relative > to several GNSO Groups, if they wish. > > 3. Definition of all acronyms and various terms for clarity and > appropriate context. > > 4. Instructions for Question 14 to address the choice of responding > to more or fewer questions based on one?s familiarity and knowledge of > the GNSO. > > 5. Closing notes at the end of the survey, including next steps. > > 6. Other items ? including those based on your feedback. > > > > *_Online 360 Assessment_* > > You can view the latest draft of the online assessment here > . The Westlake > Governance team will participate in the call tomorrow to update you on > their progress and next steps relative to the 360 Assessment, and to > respond to your feedback. > > > > *_Next steps_* > > Please take the online 360 Assessment > and provide your > feedback, either during the GNSO Review Working Party scheduled call > tomorrow (Thursday, 24 July at 14:00 UTC) or via the survey itself or > email, *by 29 July 14:00 UTC*. > > ? The communication components and online 360 Assessment will be > finalized on 30 July. > > ? 360 Assessment will be launched on 4 August. > > ? Ongoing outreach and engagement activities. > > ? Responses will be collected throughout August and into > September, if needed to ensure a broad and diverse set of responses. > > ? Westlake Governance will provide regular updates on the number > and diversity of the responders. > > > > Thank you for your valuable input into this process. > > Best wishes, > > > > */Larisa B. Gurnick/* > > Director, Strategic Initiatives > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > larisa.gurnick at icann.org > > 310 383-8995 > > > From avri at acm.org Thu Jul 24 14:52:32 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:52:32 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment Update In-Reply-To: <53D111D3.8040802@acm.org> References: <29dfb4d59928491d8921b2b3696bcf18@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <53D111D3.8040802@acm.org> Message-ID: <53D11DB0.1020806@acm.org> Hi, My other mtg ran long. Just tried to join but first was rejected and then was told the meeting had ended. Apologies for missing it. avri On 24-Jul-14 10:01, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi > > I will probavbly be 30 minutes late for the meeting as I am currently in > another meeting. > > I have one comment from my SG so far to offer: > > I think the survey should provide a definition for what it means by > "well- represented". For the question that was something along the > lines of "how well represented are commercial / noncommercial users?" I > wasn't sure exactly what was being asked. If "well represented" means > 'effective at influencing outcomes' or if it means 'the group does well > to represent a broad and diverse range of views from within that SG.' > So I'd give a different answer depending on what is meant by "well > represented". > > > avri > > > On 23-Jul-14 12:26, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> Westlake Governance, the independent examiner conducting the GNSO >> Review, has developed an online survey, based on the feedback you?ve >> provided. >> >> >> >> *_Current status_* >> >> Please note that in preparation for the launch of the 360 Assessment, >> work is still in progress, including the following elements: >> >> 1. Introductory communications, including video from Jen, emails >> and blog. >> >> 2. User-friendly means for responders to provide feedback relative >> to several GNSO Groups, if they wish. >> >> 3. Definition of all acronyms and various terms for clarity and >> appropriate context. >> >> 4. Instructions for Question 14 to address the choice of responding >> to more or fewer questions based on one?s familiarity and knowledge of >> the GNSO. >> >> 5. Closing notes at the end of the survey, including next steps. >> >> 6. Other items ? including those based on your feedback. >> >> >> >> *_Online 360 Assessment_* >> >> You can view the latest draft of the online assessment here >> . The Westlake >> Governance team will participate in the call tomorrow to update you on >> their progress and next steps relative to the 360 Assessment, and to >> respond to your feedback. >> >> >> >> *_Next steps_* >> >> Please take the online 360 Assessment >> and provide your >> feedback, either during the GNSO Review Working Party scheduled call >> tomorrow (Thursday, 24 July at 14:00 UTC) or via the survey itself or >> email, *by 29 July 14:00 UTC*. >> >> ? The communication components and online 360 Assessment will be >> finalized on 30 July. >> >> ? 360 Assessment will be launched on 4 August. >> >> ? Ongoing outreach and engagement activities. >> >> ? Responses will be collected throughout August and into >> September, if needed to ensure a broad and diverse set of responses. >> >> ? Westlake Governance will provide regular updates on the number >> and diversity of the responders. >> >> >> >> Thank you for your valuable input into this process. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> */Larisa B. Gurnick/* >> >> Director, Strategic Initiatives >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> larisa.gurnick at icann.org >> >> 310 383-8995 >> >> >> > > From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Thu Jul 24 21:31:05 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:31:05 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] MP3 recording GNSO Review Working Party teleconference Thursday 24 July 2014 1400 UTC Message-ID: Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Review Working Party teleconference held on Tuesday 24 July 2014 at 1400 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-20140724-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#julty The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Jennifer Wolfe David Maher Wolf Ullrich Knoben Ron Andruff Klaus Stoll Philip Sheppard Bret Fausett Michele Neylon Chuck Gomes Guest speaker: Richard Westlake Apologies: Stephane Van Gelder Avri Doria ICANN Staff: Larisa Gurnick Marika Konings Mary Wong Lars Hoffman Matt Ashtiani Glen de St Gery Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Adobe Chat transcript: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the GNSO Review Working Party call on the 24th July 2014 Ron A:Good day all. Just waiting on the conf call coordinator to let me in. Michele Neylon:waiting for operator .. Michele Neylon:and in Ron A:me too Nathalie Peregrine:Avri has warned that she will join the call late Ron A:@ Jen: I believe Philip and Chuck have commented. I'll be doing it today. Jennifer Wolfe:Thank you, sorry I thought it was you. I look forward to your comments and thank Philip and Chuck for their comments. Ron A:@ Matt: can you enlarge the page please? Ron A:Thanks! Chuck Gomes:Will there be a limit of only responding to two groups? Chuck Gomes:'No opinion' has a different meaning than 'not applicable' but in some cases 'no opinion' is the only response that remotely works. Larisa Gurnick:Question 8 has already been flagged to be corrected Philip:Ignore my point 3 in the email today. i note Q 11, 12 cover it Larisa Gurnick:Phillip, thanks for the note. I made that same observation. Ron A:That works for me Richard. Thanks! Philip:Compressing text boxes - always good idea ! Ron A:7 days Michele Neylon:don't assume that we'll alll do it Michele Neylon:I lose patience with long surveys David Maher (PIR):+1 Ron A:Agreed Chuck. We need to consider moving this to September. Larisa Gurnick:Chuck, we are prepared to keep the survey open through sepember Philip:Agreed re August being low activity month Larisa Gurnick:We will continue to monitor responses Philip:Bye all thanks Ron A:Thanks all! Larisa Gurnick:thank you -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Mon Jul 28 22:49:43 2014 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 22:49:43 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Message-ID: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here. Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at rodenbaugh.com Mon Jul 28 23:38:04 2014 From: mike at rodenbaugh.com (Mike Rodenbaugh) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:38:04 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake justification for making this change. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote: > Dear All, > > The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback > received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here > . Please provide your > final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies *by > August 1, 23:59 UTC*. > > > > The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions > pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A > responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these > groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as > he/she would like. > > > > The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear > roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options > available to the responder. > > > > Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing > and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of > acronyms, etc. > > > > Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment > useful and informative. > > > > *Larisa B. Gurnick* > > Director, Strategic Initiatives > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > larisa.gurnick at icann.org > > 310 383-8995 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Tue Jul 29 00:55:29 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 00:55:29 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mike, Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake justification for making this change. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick > wrote: Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here. Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at rodenbaugh.com Tue Jul 29 15:26:41 2014 From: mike at rodenbaugh.com (Mike Rodenbaugh) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 08:26:41 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Chuck, Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > Mike, > > > > Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the > default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the > RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh > *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM > *To:* Larisa B. Gurnick > *Cc:* gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been > changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only > be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for > such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public > response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their > particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for > 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of > ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the > public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can > adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. > > > > Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake > justification for making this change. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick < > larisa.gurnick at icann.org> wrote: > > Dear All, > > The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback > received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here > . Please provide your > final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies *by > August 1, 23:59 UTC*. > > > > The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions > pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A > responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these > groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as > he/she would like. > > > > The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear > roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options > available to the responder. > > > > Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing > and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of > acronyms, etc. > > > > Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment > useful and informative. > > > > *Larisa B. Gurnick* > > Director, Strategic Initiatives > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > larisa.gurnick at icann.org > > 310 383-8995 > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Tue Jul 29 15:31:32 2014 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:31:32 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Mike, Staff acknowledges your question and will provide a response from Westlake Governance to explain the justification for the change. Best wishes, Larisa Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 8:27 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Chuck, Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake justification for making this change. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick > wrote: Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here. Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Tue Jul 29 16:43:43 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:43:43 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFC83@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mike, There has been pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this. Several people have asked for the IPC rationale. I communicated that the main reason I heard was transparency. If you can add to that, I will share it with the RySG. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Chuck, Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake justification for making this change. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick > wrote: Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here. Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at rodenbaugh.com Tue Jul 29 17:12:23 2014 From: mike at rodenbaugh.com (Mike Rodenbaugh) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:12:23 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFC83@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFC83@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Thanks Chuck. In a nutshell, we think the survey responses will be very important, and should not generally be kept secret. In order for the Working Party to do its job, and for the public to properly weigh in on the recommendations of Westlake and/or the Working Party, the underlying data generally needs to be made available. ICANN is an open and transparent organization, data and opinions are typically shared publicly for the benefit, input and buy-in of the entire community. Those respondents who wish to maintain confidentiality of their response can elect to do so, and so that should address any confidentiality concern. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > Mike, > > > > There has been pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this. > Several people have asked for the IPC rationale. I communicated that the > main reason I heard was transparency. If you can add to that, I will share > it with the RySG. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Chuck, > > > > Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change > to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the > issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that > has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Mike, > > > > Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the > default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the > RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh > *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM > *To:* Larisa B. Gurnick > *Cc:* gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been > changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only > be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for > such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public > response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their > particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for > 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of > ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the > public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can > adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. > > > > Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake > justification for making this change. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick < > larisa.gurnick at icann.org> wrote: > > Dear All, > > The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback > received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here > . Please provide your > final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies *by > August 1, 23:59 UTC*. > > > > The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions > pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A > responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these > groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as > he/she would like. > > > > The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear > roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options > available to the responder. > > > > Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing > and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of > acronyms, etc. > > > > Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment > useful and informative. > > > > *Larisa B. Gurnick* > > Director, Strategic Initiatives > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > larisa.gurnick at icann.org > > 310 383-8995 > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Tue Jul 29 17:22:55 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:22:55 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <012101cfab51$bec18d10$3c44a730$@dotsportllc.com> Dear Larisa, Richard and all, I have taken the Survey and, taking time to consider and answer each question, it took one hour to complete. (Note: I filled in answers for the BC and CSG, i.e., two structural groups.) Upon reflection, I don't find this to be too long considering the fact we are doing a 5-year review of the GNSO. My observation, in general, is that this survey will NOT give us all of the information that one might like to have, but it will give us some baseline data to initiate improvements in the GNSO structure and operations. And that is what we are after, in my view, so this survey should serve that purpose. More specifically, my other comments are noted below: Introduction page: explains about the text fields, but needs to note the maximum number of characters (besides the email address for more space). [Westlake: Is there not a better way to allow respondents to say more without having to send an email? Not sure how you will be able match the mail to the specific survey, particularly if we get significant feedback.] .#8 GNSO communications. GNSO seeks and incorporates community feedback on proposals. Is this what the "GNSO" does? Or is this what Council does on behalf of the GNSO? The question is confusing when one understands that the GNSO is not the Council, rather the entire body of ICANN (except, of course, the other SOs and ACs). Need more clarity in this question. Constituency/Stakeholder group questions: The Constituency has access to external (to ICANN) advice, e.g. legal or technical Why is this question included? Is it something that has been available to the community and unused, or are we asking if we should be making this available? Do we have a need for this, in actuality, or do we have enough expertise internally? Confused. need clarity on this question, particularly as it is asked of every constituency. Clarifications from Working Party members as much as from Westlake are more than welcome. We are slowly getting there. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 18:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Richard G A Westlake Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here . Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Tue Jul 29 17:33:53 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 17:33:53 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFC83@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFDD7@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mike, If I am understanding you correctly, I wonder whether we are talking past each other. In advocating for confidentiality, I am not saying that responses should be confidential but rather that the identity of the responder should be kept confidential by default. I think that the responses should be publicly available. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Chuck. In a nutshell, we think the survey responses will be very important, and should not generally be kept secret. In order for the Working Party to do its job, and for the public to properly weigh in on the recommendations of Westlake and/or the Working Party, the underlying data generally needs to be made available. ICANN is an open and transparent organization, data and opinions are typically shared publicly for the benefit, input and buy-in of the entire community. Those respondents who wish to maintain confidentiality of their response can elect to do so, and so that should address any confidentiality concern. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, There has been pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this. Several people have asked for the IPC rationale. I communicated that the main reason I heard was transparency. If you can add to that, I will share it with the RySG. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Chuck, Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake justification for making this change. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick > wrote: Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here. Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at rodenbaugh.com Tue Jul 29 17:45:44 2014 From: mike at rodenbaugh.com (Mike Rodenbaugh) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:45:44 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFDD7@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFC83@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFDD7@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Good then we at least agree as to the body of the responses. But the current draft instructions seem clear that the entire response will remain confidential only to Westlake, not even to Staff: Individual responses will not be made available publicly. Your input will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are willing for your individual feedback to be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate in the consent box below I consent to the independent reviewer sharing my individual feedback with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff for the express purpose of assisting with the 2014 GNSO Review. We still may disagree as to whether names should be attached to the response by default. We in the IPC think giving an 'opt out' to public disclosure is sufficient protection for the relatively few people who would want to keep their name out of the purview of the Working Party and/or public. When evaluating the responses, it is important to know who is speaking. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > Mike, > > > > If I am understanding you correctly, I wonder whether we are talking past > each other. In advocating for confidentiality, I am not saying that > responses should be confidential but rather that the identity of the > responder should be kept confidential by default. I think that the > responses should be publicly available. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Thanks Chuck. In a nutshell, we think the survey responses will be very > important, and should not generally be kept secret. In order for the > Working Party to do its job, and for the public to properly weigh in on the > recommendations of Westlake and/or the Working Party, the underlying data > generally needs to be made available. ICANN is an open and transparent > organization, data and opinions are typically shared publicly for the > benefit, input and buy-in of the entire community. Those respondents who > wish to maintain confidentiality of their response can elect to do so, and > so that should address any confidentiality concern. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Mike, > > > > There has been pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this. > Several people have asked for the IPC rationale. I communicated that the > main reason I heard was transparency. If you can add to that, I will share > it with the RySG. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Chuck, > > > > Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change > to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the > issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that > has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Mike, > > > > Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the > default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the > RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh > *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM > *To:* Larisa B. Gurnick > *Cc:* gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been > changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only > be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for > such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public > response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their > particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for > 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of > ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the > public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can > adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. > > > > Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake > justification for making this change. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick < > larisa.gurnick at icann.org> wrote: > > Dear All, > > The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback > received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here > . Please provide your > final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies *by > August 1, 23:59 UTC*. > > > > The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions > pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A > responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these > groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as > he/she would like. > > > > The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear > roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options > available to the responder. > > > > Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing > and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of > acronyms, etc. > > > > Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment > useful and informative. > > > > *Larisa B. Gurnick* > > Director, Strategic Initiatives > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > larisa.gurnick at icann.org > > 310 383-8995 > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Tue Jul 29 18:21:59 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:21:59 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFC83@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFDD7@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFEA2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Would the following rewording work: ?Identity of responders will not be made available publicly. Your identity will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are willing for your identity to be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate in the consent box below? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:46 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Good then we at least agree as to the body of the responses. But the current draft instructions seem clear that the entire response will remain confidential only to Westlake, not even to Staff: Individual responses will not be made available publicly. Your input will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are willing for your individual feedback to be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate in the consent box below ( ) I consent to the independent reviewer sharing my individual feedback with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff for the express purpose of assisting with the 2014 GNSO Review. We still may disagree as to whether names should be attached to the response by default. We in the IPC think giving an 'opt out' to public disclosure is sufficient protection for the relatively few people who would want to keep their name out of the purview of the Working Party and/or public. When evaluating the responses, it is important to know who is speaking. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, If I am understanding you correctly, I wonder whether we are talking past each other. In advocating for confidentiality, I am not saying that responses should be confidential but rather that the identity of the responder should be kept confidential by default. I think that the responses should be publicly available. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Chuck. In a nutshell, we think the survey responses will be very important, and should not generally be kept secret. In order for the Working Party to do its job, and for the public to properly weigh in on the recommendations of Westlake and/or the Working Party, the underlying data generally needs to be made available. ICANN is an open and transparent organization, data and opinions are typically shared publicly for the benefit, input and buy-in of the entire community. Those respondents who wish to maintain confidentiality of their response can elect to do so, and so that should address any confidentiality concern. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, There has been pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this. Several people have asked for the IPC rationale. I communicated that the main reason I heard was transparency. If you can add to that, I will share it with the RySG. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Chuck, Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake justification for making this change. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick > wrote: Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here. Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From svg at milathan.com Tue Jul 29 18:29:36 2014 From: svg at milathan.com (Stephane Van Gelder) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:29:36 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: I have just gone through the whole survey and find it very user friendly. I agree with other comments that some of the questions may seem either off-point, but I think they are well designed to allow both experienced GNSO watchers/participants and newbies or non-experienced GNSO people to provide useful input. Ron has informed the BC of the new draft survey, so we will be able to let this group know of any suggestions from them. IMO however, we are more or less good to go with this and should not spend much more time on it. Best, St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 29 July 2014 00:49, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote: > Dear All, > > The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback > received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here > . Please provide your > final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies *by > August 1, 23:59 UTC*. > > > > The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions > pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A > responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these > groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as > he/she would like. > > > > The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear > roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options > available to the responder. > > > > Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing > and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of > acronyms, etc. > > > > Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment > useful and informative. > > > > *Larisa B. Gurnick* > > Director, Strategic Initiatives > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > larisa.gurnick at icann.org > > 310 383-8995 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michele at blacknight.com Tue Jul 29 18:38:52 2014 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:38:52 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: All I've also reviewed the survey.. In question 3 - is there any way make the text box obligatory if your answer is anything other than "myself"? Apart from that I don't see any other issues Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 7:30 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised I have just gone through the whole survey and find it very user friendly. I agree with other comments that some of the questions may seem either off-point, but I think they are well designed to allow both experienced GNSO watchers/participants and newbies or non-experienced GNSO people to provide useful input. Ron has informed the BC of the new draft survey, so we will be able to let this group know of any suggestions from them. IMO however, we are more or less good to go with this and should not spend much more time on it. Best, St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 29 July 2014 00:49, Larisa B. Gurnick > wrote: Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here. Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at rodenbaugh.com Tue Jul 29 18:47:40 2014 From: mike at rodenbaugh.com (Mike Rodenbaugh) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:47:40 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFEA2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFC83@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFDD7@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFEA2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Still has the wrong default, in IPC's opinion, and per general ICANN notions of transparency. How about this? ?*Your **identity** will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, if you so elect by checking the box below. Otherwise your identified response will** be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff.*? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > Would the following rewording work: > > > > ?*Identity of responders **will not be made available publicly. Your * > *identity** will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent > reviewer, unless you are willing for your **identity** to be shared for > further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN > staff, please indicate in the consent box below*? > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:46 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Good then we at least agree as to the body of the responses. But the > current draft instructions seem clear that the entire response will remain > confidential only to Westlake, not even to Staff: > > > > *Individual responses will not be made available publicly. Your input will > remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are > willing for your individual feedback to be shared for further analysis with > the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate > in the consent box below* > > ( ) I consent to the independent reviewer sharing my individual feedback > with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff for the > express purpose of assisting with the 2014 GNSO Review. > > > > We still may disagree as to whether names should be attached to the > response by default. We in the IPC think giving an 'opt out' to public > disclosure is sufficient protection for the relatively few people who would > want to keep their name out of the purview of the Working Party and/or > public. When evaluating the responses, it is important to know who is > speaking. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: > > Mike, > > > > If I am understanding you correctly, I wonder whether we are talking past > each other. In advocating for confidentiality, I am not saying that > responses should be confidential but rather that the identity of the > responder should be kept confidential by default. I think that the > responses should be publicly available. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Thanks Chuck. In a nutshell, we think the survey responses will be very > important, and should not generally be kept secret. In order for the > Working Party to do its job, and for the public to properly weigh in on the > recommendations of Westlake and/or the Working Party, the underlying data > generally needs to be made available. ICANN is an open and transparent > organization, data and opinions are typically shared publicly for the > benefit, input and buy-in of the entire community. Those respondents who > wish to maintain confidentiality of their response can elect to do so, and > so that should address any confidentiality concern. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Mike, > > > > There has been pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this. > Several people have asked for the IPC rationale. I communicated that the > main reason I heard was transparency. If you can add to that, I will share > it with the RySG. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Chuck, > > > > Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change > to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the > issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that > has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Mike, > > > > Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the > default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the > RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh > *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM > *To:* Larisa B. Gurnick > *Cc:* gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been > changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only > be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for > such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public > response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their > particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for > 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of > ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the > public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can > adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. > > > > Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake > justification for making this change. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick < > larisa.gurnick at icann.org> wrote: > > Dear All, > > The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback > received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here > . Please provide your > final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies *by > August 1, 23:59 UTC*. > > > > The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions > pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A > responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these > groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as > he/she would like. > > > > The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear > roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options > available to the responder. > > > > Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing > and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of > acronyms, etc. > > > > Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment > useful and informative. > > > > *Larisa B. Gurnick* > > Director, Strategic Initiatives > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > larisa.gurnick at icann.org > > 310 383-8995 > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Tue Jul 29 20:12:51 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:12:51 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFC83@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFDD7@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFEA2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFFA3@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Here?s another approach for consideration (suggested by Rubens Kuhl from the RySG): ?I don't think that defaulting either to confidential or not confidential should be done. This first question can be mandatory so the respondent picks whether it's confidential or not, instead of us, IPC, ICANN or Westlake.? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Still has the wrong default, in IPC's opinion, and per general ICANN notions of transparency. How about this? ?Your identity will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, if you so elect by checking the box below. Otherwise your identified response will be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff.? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Would the following rewording work: ?Identity of responders will not be made available publicly. Your identity will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are willing for your identity to be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate in the consent box below? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:46 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Good then we at least agree as to the body of the responses. But the current draft instructions seem clear that the entire response will remain confidential only to Westlake, not even to Staff: Individual responses will not be made available publicly. Your input will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are willing for your individual feedback to be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate in the consent box below ( ) I consent to the independent reviewer sharing my individual feedback with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff for the express purpose of assisting with the 2014 GNSO Review. We still may disagree as to whether names should be attached to the response by default. We in the IPC think giving an 'opt out' to public disclosure is sufficient protection for the relatively few people who would want to keep their name out of the purview of the Working Party and/or public. When evaluating the responses, it is important to know who is speaking. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, If I am understanding you correctly, I wonder whether we are talking past each other. In advocating for confidentiality, I am not saying that responses should be confidential but rather that the identity of the responder should be kept confidential by default. I think that the responses should be publicly available. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Chuck. In a nutshell, we think the survey responses will be very important, and should not generally be kept secret. In order for the Working Party to do its job, and for the public to properly weigh in on the recommendations of Westlake and/or the Working Party, the underlying data generally needs to be made available. ICANN is an open and transparent organization, data and opinions are typically shared publicly for the benefit, input and buy-in of the entire community. Those respondents who wish to maintain confidentiality of their response can elect to do so, and so that should address any confidentiality concern. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, There has been pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this. Several people have asked for the IPC rationale. I communicated that the main reason I heard was transparency. If you can add to that, I will share it with the RySG. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Chuck, Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake justification for making this change. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick > wrote: Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here. Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at rodenbaugh.com Tue Jul 29 20:17:19 2014 From: mike at rodenbaugh.com (Mike Rodenbaugh) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:17:19 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFFA3@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFC83@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFDD7@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFEA2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFFA3@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: That is another approach, but we still favor a default public response, since we should want as many candid, informed, public responses as possible. Curious to hear Westlake and others' views on this. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > Here?s another approach for consideration (suggested by Rubens Kuhl from > the RySG): ?I don't think that defaulting either to confidential or not > confidential should be done. This first question can be mandatory so the > respondent picks whether it's confidential or not, instead of us, IPC, > ICANN or Westlake.? > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:48 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Still has the wrong default, in IPC's opinion, and per general ICANN > notions of transparency. How about this? > > > > ?*Your **identity** will remain confidential to Westlake as the > independent reviewer, if you so elect by checking the box below. Otherwise > your identified response will be shared for further analysis with the GNSO > Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff.*? > > > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: > > Would the following rewording work: > > > > ?*Identity of responders **will not be made available publicly. Your * > *identity** will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent > reviewer, unless you are willing for your **identity** to be shared for > further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN > staff, please indicate in the consent box below*? > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:46 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Good then we at least agree as to the body of the responses. But the > current draft instructions seem clear that the entire response will remain > confidential only to Westlake, not even to Staff: > > > > *Individual responses will not be made available publicly. Your input will > remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are > willing for your individual feedback to be shared for further analysis with > the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate > in the consent box below* > > ( ) I consent to the independent reviewer sharing my individual feedback > with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff for the > express purpose of assisting with the 2014 GNSO Review. > > > > We still may disagree as to whether names should be attached to the > response by default. We in the IPC think giving an 'opt out' to public > disclosure is sufficient protection for the relatively few people who would > want to keep their name out of the purview of the Working Party and/or > public. When evaluating the responses, it is important to know who is > speaking. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: > > Mike, > > > > If I am understanding you correctly, I wonder whether we are talking past > each other. In advocating for confidentiality, I am not saying that > responses should be confidential but rather that the identity of the > responder should be kept confidential by default. I think that the > responses should be publicly available. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Thanks Chuck. In a nutshell, we think the survey responses will be very > important, and should not generally be kept secret. In order for the > Working Party to do its job, and for the public to properly weigh in on the > recommendations of Westlake and/or the Working Party, the underlying data > generally needs to be made available. ICANN is an open and transparent > organization, data and opinions are typically shared publicly for the > benefit, input and buy-in of the entire community. Those respondents who > wish to maintain confidentiality of their response can elect to do so, and > so that should address any confidentiality concern. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Mike, > > > > There has been pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this. > Several people have asked for the IPC rationale. I communicated that the > main reason I heard was transparency. If you can add to that, I will share > it with the RySG. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Chuck, > > > > Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change > to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the > issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that > has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Mike, > > > > Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the > default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the > RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh > *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM > *To:* Larisa B. Gurnick > *Cc:* gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been > changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only > be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for > such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public > response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their > particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for > 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of > ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the > public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can > adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. > > > > Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake > justification for making this change. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick < > larisa.gurnick at icann.org> wrote: > > Dear All, > > The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback > received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here > . Please provide your > final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies *by > August 1, 23:59 UTC*. > > > > The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions > pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A > responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these > groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as > he/she would like. > > > > The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear > roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options > available to the responder. > > > > Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing > and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of > acronyms, etc. > > > > Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment > useful and informative. > > > > *Larisa B. Gurnick* > > Director, Strategic Initiatives > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > larisa.gurnick at icann.org > > 310 383-8995 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Tue Jul 29 20:44:07 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:44:07 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFC83@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFDD7@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFEA2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFFA3@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C00AB@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Some people are much more candid if they can be anonymous. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:17 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised That is another approach, but we still favor a default public response, since we should want as many candid, informed, public responses as possible. Curious to hear Westlake and others' views on this. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Here?s another approach for consideration (suggested by Rubens Kuhl from the RySG): ?I don't think that defaulting either to confidential or not confidential should be done. This first question can be mandatory so the respondent picks whether it's confidential or not, instead of us, IPC, ICANN or Westlake.? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Still has the wrong default, in IPC's opinion, and per general ICANN notions of transparency. How about this? ?Your identity will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, if you so elect by checking the box below. Otherwise your identified response will be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff.? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Would the following rewording work: ?Identity of responders will not be made available publicly. Your identity will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are willing for your identity to be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate in the consent box below? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:46 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Good then we at least agree as to the body of the responses. But the current draft instructions seem clear that the entire response will remain confidential only to Westlake, not even to Staff: Individual responses will not be made available publicly. Your input will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are willing for your individual feedback to be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate in the consent box below ( ) I consent to the independent reviewer sharing my individual feedback with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff for the express purpose of assisting with the 2014 GNSO Review. We still may disagree as to whether names should be attached to the response by default. We in the IPC think giving an 'opt out' to public disclosure is sufficient protection for the relatively few people who would want to keep their name out of the purview of the Working Party and/or public. When evaluating the responses, it is important to know who is speaking. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, If I am understanding you correctly, I wonder whether we are talking past each other. In advocating for confidentiality, I am not saying that responses should be confidential but rather that the identity of the responder should be kept confidential by default. I think that the responses should be publicly available. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Chuck. In a nutshell, we think the survey responses will be very important, and should not generally be kept secret. In order for the Working Party to do its job, and for the public to properly weigh in on the recommendations of Westlake and/or the Working Party, the underlying data generally needs to be made available. ICANN is an open and transparent organization, data and opinions are typically shared publicly for the benefit, input and buy-in of the entire community. Those respondents who wish to maintain confidentiality of their response can elect to do so, and so that should address any confidentiality concern. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, There has been pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this. Several people have asked for the IPC rationale. I communicated that the main reason I heard was transparency. If you can add to that, I will share it with the RySG. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Chuck, Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake justification for making this change. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick > wrote: Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here. Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Tue Jul 29 20:51:06 2014 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:51:06 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C00AB@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFC83@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFDD7@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFEA2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFFA3@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C00AB@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <41105d976b0949da878f4a881c3806c0@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> I completely agree and think it?s important we clearly help the survey taker to understand that they can elect for their comments and responses to be anonymous. I don?t think we want to mislead the survey taker into thinking that their comments won?t be made available to the community or considered by the Review Party if they elect for confidentiality. My understanding is that we would still have data points on those responses and the qualitative comments, we just would attribute to a specific person but rather categorically to how the survey taker responded to questions about ICANN experience. Larisa or Richard, could you please confirm that?s how the data will be aggregated and presented to the Working Party and the community? Thank you to everyone for continued debate and participation in this discussion. jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm, named top u.s. trademark law firm by corp intl 2013 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:44 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Some people are much more candid if they can be anonymous. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:17 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised That is another approach, but we still favor a default public response, since we should want as many candid, informed, public responses as possible. Curious to hear Westlake and others' views on this. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Here?s another approach for consideration (suggested by Rubens Kuhl from the RySG): ?I don't think that defaulting either to confidential or not confidential should be done. This first question can be mandatory so the respondent picks whether it's confidential or not, instead of us, IPC, ICANN or Westlake.? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Still has the wrong default, in IPC's opinion, and per general ICANN notions of transparency. How about this? ?Your identity will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, if you so elect by checking the box below. Otherwise your identified response will be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff.? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Would the following rewording work: ?Identity of responders will not be made available publicly. Your identity will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are willing for your identity to be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate in the consent box below? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:46 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Good then we at least agree as to the body of the responses. But the current draft instructions seem clear that the entire response will remain confidential only to Westlake, not even to Staff: Individual responses will not be made available publicly. Your input will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are willing for your individual feedback to be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate in the consent box below ( ) I consent to the independent reviewer sharing my individual feedback with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff for the express purpose of assisting with the 2014 GNSO Review. We still may disagree as to whether names should be attached to the response by default. We in the IPC think giving an 'opt out' to public disclosure is sufficient protection for the relatively few people who would want to keep their name out of the purview of the Working Party and/or public. When evaluating the responses, it is important to know who is speaking. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, If I am understanding you correctly, I wonder whether we are talking past each other. In advocating for confidentiality, I am not saying that responses should be confidential but rather that the identity of the responder should be kept confidential by default. I think that the responses should be publicly available. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Chuck. In a nutshell, we think the survey responses will be very important, and should not generally be kept secret. In order for the Working Party to do its job, and for the public to properly weigh in on the recommendations of Westlake and/or the Working Party, the underlying data generally needs to be made available. ICANN is an open and transparent organization, data and opinions are typically shared publicly for the benefit, input and buy-in of the entire community. Those respondents who wish to maintain confidentiality of their response can elect to do so, and so that should address any confidentiality concern. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, There has been pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this. Several people have asked for the IPC rationale. I communicated that the main reason I heard was transparency. If you can add to that, I will share it with the RySG. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Chuck, Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake justification for making this change. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick > wrote: Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here. Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 864 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 1028 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 811 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From svg at milathan.com Wed Jul 30 11:40:11 2014 From: svg at milathan.com (Stephane Van Gelder) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:40:11 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - additional comments from a BC member Message-ID: Team, As previously mentioned, Ron and I sought the BC's opinion on the survey draft. Please find below some very comprehensive comments sent in by one BC member. Best, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments about the survey. First, just as a disclaimer--without context for some of the data points sought, my ability to judge content is limited. My comments are these: * The current industry standard format for 5-option, scaled surveys does not include both "no opinion" and "not applicable". Rather, options generally fall across a spectrum, in order (, or its inverse), like this: Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree ...with Does not apply on the far right or far left * I do not understand why an asterisk alongside each numbered question. This is distracting to me, and appears to me to be unnecessary. * My comment regarding Questions #7-end is that there is little difference between "no opinion" and "not applicable," and it is unclear to me what benefit discernment of these two things provides among the data to be collected. Also, the lack of a "neither agree nor disagree" in the middle interrupts the spectrum of choices and causes unnecessarily distraction. "Not applicable" does not appear to be useful at all, especially after the 'answerer' has already indicated an interest in that stakeholder group or constituency. On the other hand, if the question itself does not apply...it may have a better place to exist than this survey. RE: Question #9 - Consider including "governments" in the list. - This one measures "not enough" but misses an easy opportunity to measure "too much". RE: Question #12. Are you involved with the GNSO Council? This appears vague to me. As a survey respondent, I have much room for subjectivity. Perhaps it is desirable and possible to as a more specific question? RE: Questions #12 and #13 An incosistency that caused me to indicate an answer opposite the one intended. On Question #12, the "yes" is on top. On Question #13, the "yes" is on the bottom. I may not be the only one to look at placement and not the words. RE: Question #15 The font above text box does not match the font above the other text boxes RE: All sections that appear following the "are you an observer or member of..." questions There appears to be no delineation between observer and member. I can see the answers to these questions varying based upon which group--observer vs. member--one belongs. Perhaps it would be useful to have this delineation as well? As it stands, it appears that answers from observers carry the same weight as answers from members--which may be intentional. I may have different thoughts with a better understanding of the tactical objectives of this survey. The data points selected to be used may be very well thought-out. My comment about that is only that we be assured that the layout of the survey, and the questions in it, allow us to receive the greatest benefit possible as a result. St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 29 July 2014 22:51, Jen Wolfe wrote: > I completely agree and think it's important we clearly help the survey > taker to understand that they can elect for their comments and responses to > be anonymous. > > > > I don't think we want to mislead the survey taker into thinking that their > comments won't be made available to the community or considered by the > Review Party if they elect for confidentiality. My understanding is that > we would still have data points on those responses and the qualitative > comments, we just would attribute to a specific person but rather > categorically to how the survey taker responded to questions about ICANN > experience. > > > > Larisa or Richard, could you please confirm that's how the data will be > aggregated and presented to the Working Party and the community? > > > > Thank you to everyone for continued debate and participation in this > discussion. > > > > *jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB* > > Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm > > managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual > property law firm, *named top u.s. trademark law firm by corp intl 2013* > > *IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013* > > *513.746.2801* > > *Follow Me:* *[image: Description: Description: Description: Description: > cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* > *[image: Description: Description: Description: Description: > cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* *[image: > Description: Description: Description: Description: > cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* > > *Follow My Blog* > > *Domain Names Rewired* > > > > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:44 PM > *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh > > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Some people are much more candid if they can be anonymous. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com ] > > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:17 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > That is another approach, but we still favor a default public response, > since we should want as many candid, informed, public responses as > possible. Curious to hear Westlake and others' views on this. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Here's another approach for consideration (suggested by Rubens Kuhl from > the RySG): "I don't think that defaulting either to confidential or not > confidential should be done. This first question can be mandatory so the > respondent picks whether it's confidential or not, instead of us, IPC, > ICANN or Westlake." > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:48 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Still has the wrong default, in IPC's opinion, and per general ICANN > notions of transparency. How about this? > > > > "*Your **identity** will remain confidential to Westlake as the > independent reviewer, if you so elect by checking the box below. Otherwise > your identified response will be shared for further analysis with the GNSO > Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff.*" > > > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: > > Would the following rewording work: > > > > "*Identity of responders **will not be made available publicly. Your * > *identity** will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent > reviewer, unless you are willing for your **identity** to be shared for > further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN > staff, please indicate in the consent box below*" > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:46 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Good then we at least agree as to the body of the responses. But the > current draft instructions seem clear that the entire response will remain > confidential only to Westlake, not even to Staff: > > > > *Individual responses will not be made available publicly. Your input will > remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are > willing for your individual feedback to be shared for further analysis with > the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate > in the consent box below* > > ( ) I consent to the independent reviewer sharing my individual feedback > with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff for the > express purpose of assisting with the 2014 GNSO Review. > > > > We still may disagree as to whether names should be attached to the > response by default. We in the IPC think giving an 'opt out' to public > disclosure is sufficient protection for the relatively few people who would > want to keep their name out of the purview of the Working Party and/or > public. When evaluating the responses, it is important to know who is > speaking. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: > > Mike, > > > > If I am understanding you correctly, I wonder whether we are talking past > each other. In advocating for confidentiality, I am not saying that > responses should be confidential but rather that the identity of the > responder should be kept confidential by default. I think that the > responses should be publicly available. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Thanks Chuck. In a nutshell, we think the survey responses will be very > important, and should not generally be kept secret. In order for the > Working Party to do its job, and for the public to properly weigh in on the > recommendations of Westlake and/or the Working Party, the underlying data > generally needs to be made available. ICANN is an open and transparent > organization, data and opinions are typically shared publicly for the > benefit, input and buy-in of the entire community. Those respondents who > wish to maintain confidentiality of their response can elect to do so, and > so that should address any confidentiality concern. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Mike, > > > > There has been pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this. > Several people have asked for the IPC rationale. I communicated that the > main reason I heard was transparency. If you can add to that, I will share > it with the RySG. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Chuck, > > > > Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change > to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the > issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that > has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Mike, > > > > Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for the > default being 'public response' but I forwarded the IPC position to the > RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh > *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM > *To:* Larisa B. Gurnick > *Cc:* gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been > changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only > be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for > such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public > response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their > particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for > 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of > ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the > public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can > adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. > > > > Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake > justification for making this change. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick < > larisa.gurnick at icann.org> wrote: > > Dear All, > > The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback > received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here > . Please provide your > final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies *by > August 1, 23:59 UTC*. > > > > The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions > pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A > responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these > groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as > he/she would like. > > > > The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear > roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options > available to the responder. > > > > Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing > and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of > acronyms, etc. > > > > Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment > useful and informative. > > > > *Larisa B. Gurnick* > > Director, Strategic Initiatives > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > larisa.gurnick at icann.org > > 310 383-8995 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 1028 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 864 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Wed Jul 30 15:43:02 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:43:02 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C00AB@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFC83@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFDD7@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFEA2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFFA3@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C00AB@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <010901cfac0c$f6b89270$e429b750$@dotsportllc.com> Chuck?s point about candor is well taken. For my part, I think each respondent has the right and obligation to self-select whether their comments are anonymous or public. My two cents worth? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 16:44 To: Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Some people are much more candid if they can be anonymous. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:17 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org ; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised That is another approach, but we still favor a default public response, since we should want as many candid, informed, public responses as possible. Curious to hear Westlake and others' views on this. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Here?s another approach for consideration (suggested by Rubens Kuhl from the RySG): ?I don't think that defaulting either to confidential or not confidential should be done. This first question can be mandatory so the respondent picks whether it's confidential or not, instead of us, IPC, ICANN or Westlake.? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com ] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org ; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Still has the wrong default, in IPC's opinion, and per general ICANN notions of transparency. How about this? ?Your identity will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, if you so elect by checking the box below. Otherwise your identified response will be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff.? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Would the following rewording work: ?Identity of responders will not be made available publicly. Your identity will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are willing for your identity to be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate in the consent box below? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com ] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:46 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org ; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Good then we at least agree as to the body of the responses. But the current draft instructions seem clear that the entire response will remain confidential only to Westlake, not even to Staff: Individual responses will not be made available publicly. Your input will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are willing for your individual feedback to be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate in the consent box below ( ) I consent to the independent reviewer sharing my individual feedback with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff for the express purpose of assisting with the 2014 GNSO Review. We still may disagree as to whether names should be attached to the response by default. We in the IPC think giving an 'opt out' to public disclosure is sufficient protection for the relatively few people who would want to keep their name out of the purview of the Working Party and/or public. When evaluating the responses, it is important to know who is speaking. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, If I am understanding you correctly, I wonder whether we are talking past each other. In advocating for confidentiality, I am not saying that responses should be confidential but rather that the identity of the responder should be kept confidential by default. I think that the responses should be publicly available. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com ] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org ; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Chuck. In a nutshell, we think the survey responses will be very important, and should not generally be kept secret. In order for the Working Party to do its job, and for the public to properly weigh in on the recommendations of Westlake and/or the Working Party, the underlying data generally needs to be made available. ICANN is an open and transparent organization, data and opinions are typically shared publicly for the benefit, input and buy-in of the entire community. Those respondents who wish to maintain confidentiality of their response can elect to do so, and so that should address any confidentiality concern. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, There has been pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this. Several people have asked for the IPC rationale. I communicated that the main reason I heard was transparency. If you can add to that, I will share it with the RySG. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com ] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org ; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Chuck, Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org ; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake justification for making this change. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick > wrote: Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here . Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michele at blacknight.com Wed Jul 30 15:47:02 2014 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:47:02 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <010901cfac0c$f6b89270$e429b750$@dotsportllc.com> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFC83@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFDD7@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFEA2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFFA3@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C00AB@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <010901cfac0c$f6b89270$e429b750$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: +1 -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:43 PM To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Mike Rodenbaugh' Cc: 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; 'Richard G A Westlake' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Chuck?s point about candor is well taken. For my part, I think each respondent has the right and obligation to self-select whether their comments are anonymous or public. My two cents worth? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 16:44 To: Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Some people are much more candid if they can be anonymous. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:17 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised That is another approach, but we still favor a default public response, since we should want as many candid, informed, public responses as possible. Curious to hear Westlake and others' views on this. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Here?s another approach for consideration (suggested by Rubens Kuhl from the RySG): ?I don't think that defaulting either to confidential or not confidential should be done. This first question can be mandatory so the respondent picks whether it's confidential or not, instead of us, IPC, ICANN or Westlake.? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Still has the wrong default, in IPC's opinion, and per general ICANN notions of transparency. How about this? ?Your identity will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, if you so elect by checking the box below. Otherwise your identified response will be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff.? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Would the following rewording work: ?Identity of responders will not be made available publicly. Your identity will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are willing for your identity to be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate in the consent box below? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:46 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Good then we at least agree as to the body of the responses. But the current draft instructions seem clear that the entire response will remain confidential only to Westlake, not even to Staff: Individual responses will not be made available publicly. Your input will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are willing for your individual feedback to be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate in the consent box below ( ) I consent to the independent reviewer sharing my individual feedback with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff for the express purpose of assisting with the 2014 GNSO Review. We still may disagree as to whether names should be attached to the response by default. We in the IPC think giving an 'opt out' to public disclosure is sufficient protection for the relatively few people who would want to keep their name out of the purview of the Working Party and/or public. When evaluating the responses, it is important to know who is speaking. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, If I am understanding you correctly, I wonder whether we are talking past each other. In advocating for confidentiality, I am not saying that responses should be confidential but rather that the identity of the responder should be kept confidential by default. I think that the responses should be publicly available. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Chuck. In a nutshell, we think the survey responses will be very important, and should not generally be kept secret. In order for the Working Party to do its job, and for the public to properly weigh in on the recommendations of Westlake and/or the Working Party, the underlying data generally needs to be made available. ICANN is an open and transparent organization, data and opinions are typically shared publicly for the benefit, input and buy-in of the entire community. Those respondents who wish to maintain confidentiality of their response can elect to do so, and so that should address any confidentiality concern. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, There has been pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this. Several people have asked for the IPC rationale. I communicated that the main reason I heard was transparency. If you can add to that, I will share it with the RySG. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Chuck, Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake justification for making this change. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick > wrote: Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here. Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at rodenbaugh.com Wed Jul 30 16:43:00 2014 From: mike at rodenbaugh.com (Mike Rodenbaugh) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:43:00 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <010901cfac0c$f6b89270$e429b750$@dotsportllc.com> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFC83@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFDD7@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFEA2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFFA3@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C00AB@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <010901cfac0c$f6b89270$e429b750$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: Yes, I think we all agree on that. The only question is whether anonymity is encourages as the default choice, or instead a public response is encouraged as the default choice. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Ron Andruff wrote: > Chuck?s point about candor is well taken. For my part, I think each > respondent has the right and obligation to self-select whether their > comments are anonymous or public. > > > > My two cents worth? > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > *Ron Andruff* > > *dotSport LLC* > > *www.lifedotsport.com * > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 16:44 > *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Some people are much more candid if they can be anonymous. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com ] > > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:17 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > That is another approach, but we still favor a default public response, > since we should want as many candid, informed, public responses as > possible. Curious to hear Westlake and others' views on this. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Here?s another approach for consideration (suggested by Rubens Kuhl from > the RySG): ?I don't think that defaulting either to confidential or not > confidential should be done. This first question can be mandatory so the > respondent picks whether it's confidential or not, instead of us, IPC, > ICANN or Westlake.? > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:48 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Still has the wrong default, in IPC's opinion, and per general ICANN > notions of transparency. How about this? > > > > ?*Your **identity** will remain confidential to Westlake as the > independent reviewer, if you so elect by checking the box below. Otherwise > your identified response will be shared for further analysis with the GNSO > Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff.*? > > > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: > > Would the following rewording work: > > > > ?*Identity of responders **will not be made available publicly. Your * > *identity** will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent > reviewer, unless you are willing for your **identity** to be shared for > further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN > staff, please indicate in the consent box below*? > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:46 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Good then we at least agree as to the body of the responses. But the > current draft instructions seem clear that the entire response will remain > confidential only to Westlake, not even to Staff: > > > > *Individual responses will not be made available publicly. Your input will > remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are > willing for your individual feedback to be shared for further analysis with > the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate > in the consent box below* > > ( ) I consent to the independent reviewer sharing my individual feedback > with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff for the > express purpose of assisting with the 2014 GNSO Review. > > > > We still may disagree as to whether names should be attached to the > response by default. We in the IPC think giving an 'opt out' to public > disclosure is sufficient protection for the relatively few people who would > want to keep their name out of the purview of the Working Party and/or > public. When evaluating the responses, it is important to know who is > speaking. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: > > Mike, > > > > If I am understanding you correctly, I wonder whether we are talking past > each other. In advocating for confidentiality, I am not saying that > responses should be confidential but rather that the identity of the > responder should be kept confidential by default. I think that the > responses should be publicly available. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Thanks Chuck. In a nutshell, we think the survey responses will be very > important, and should not generally be kept secret. In order for the > Working Party to do its job, and for the public to properly weigh in on the > recommendations of Westlake and/or the Working Party, the underlying data > generally needs to be made available. ICANN is an open and transparent > organization, data and opinions are typically shared publicly for the > benefit, input and buy-in of the entire community. Those respondents who > wish to maintain confidentiality of their response can elect to do so, and > so that should address any confidentiality concern. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Mike, > > > > There has been pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this. > Several people have asked for the IPC rationale. I communicated that the > main reason I heard was transparency. If you can add to that, I will share > it with the RySG. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Chuck, > > > > Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change > to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the > issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that > has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Mike, > > > > Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the > default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the > RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh > *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM > *To:* Larisa B. Gurnick > *Cc:* gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been > changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only > be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for > such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public > response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their > particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for > 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of > ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the > public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can > adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. > > > > Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake > justification for making this change. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick < > larisa.gurnick at icann.org> wrote: > > Dear All, > > The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback > received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here > . Please provide your > final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies *by > August 1, 23:59 UTC*. > > > > The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions > pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A > responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these > groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as > he/she would like. > > > > The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear > roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options > available to the responder. > > > > Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing > and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of > acronyms, etc. > > > > Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment > useful and informative. > > > > *Larisa B. Gurnick* > > Director, Strategic Initiatives > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > larisa.gurnick at icann.org > > 310 383-8995 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Wed Jul 30 16:48:44 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:48:44 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFC83@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFDD7@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFEA2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFFA3@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C00AB@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <010901cfac0c$f6b89270$e429b750$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C0C63@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> If everyone is required to choose, then neither is encouraged. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:43 PM To: Ron Andruff Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Yes, I think we all agree on that. The only question is whether anonymity is encourages as the default choice, or instead a public response is encouraged as the default choice. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Ron Andruff > wrote: Chuck?s point about candor is well taken. For my part, I think each respondent has the right and obligation to self-select whether their comments are anonymous or public. My two cents worth? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 16:44 To: Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Some people are much more candid if they can be anonymous. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:17 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised That is another approach, but we still favor a default public response, since we should want as many candid, informed, public responses as possible. Curious to hear Westlake and others' views on this. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Here?s another approach for consideration (suggested by Rubens Kuhl from the RySG): ?I don't think that defaulting either to confidential or not confidential should be done. This first question can be mandatory so the respondent picks whether it's confidential or not, instead of us, IPC, ICANN or Westlake.? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Still has the wrong default, in IPC's opinion, and per general ICANN notions of transparency. How about this? ?Your identity will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, if you so elect by checking the box below. Otherwise your identified response will be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff.? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Would the following rewording work: ?Identity of responders will not be made available publicly. Your identity will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are willing for your identity to be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate in the consent box below? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:46 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Good then we at least agree as to the body of the responses. But the current draft instructions seem clear that the entire response will remain confidential only to Westlake, not even to Staff: Individual responses will not be made available publicly. Your input will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are willing for your individual feedback to be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate in the consent box below ( ) I consent to the independent reviewer sharing my individual feedback with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff for the express purpose of assisting with the 2014 GNSO Review. We still may disagree as to whether names should be attached to the response by default. We in the IPC think giving an 'opt out' to public disclosure is sufficient protection for the relatively few people who would want to keep their name out of the purview of the Working Party and/or public. When evaluating the responses, it is important to know who is speaking. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, If I am understanding you correctly, I wonder whether we are talking past each other. In advocating for confidentiality, I am not saying that responses should be confidential but rather that the identity of the responder should be kept confidential by default. I think that the responses should be publicly available. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Chuck. In a nutshell, we think the survey responses will be very important, and should not generally be kept secret. In order for the Working Party to do its job, and for the public to properly weigh in on the recommendations of Westlake and/or the Working Party, the underlying data generally needs to be made available. ICANN is an open and transparent organization, data and opinions are typically shared publicly for the benefit, input and buy-in of the entire community. Those respondents who wish to maintain confidentiality of their response can elect to do so, and so that should address any confidentiality concern. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, There has been pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this. Several people have asked for the IPC rationale. I communicated that the main reason I heard was transparency. If you can add to that, I will share it with the RySG. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Chuck, Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake justification for making this change. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick > wrote: Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here. Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michele at blacknight.com Wed Jul 30 16:50:21 2014 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:50:21 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C0C63@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFC83@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFDD7@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFEA2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFFA3@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C00AB@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <010901cfac0c$f6b89270$e429b750$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C0C63@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Agreed Can we please move on :) -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 5:49 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; Ron Andruff Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised If everyone is required to choose, then neither is encouraged. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:43 PM To: Ron Andruff Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Yes, I think we all agree on that. The only question is whether anonymity is encourages as the default choice, or instead a public response is encouraged as the default choice. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Ron Andruff > wrote: Chuck?s point about candor is well taken. For my part, I think each respondent has the right and obligation to self-select whether their comments are anonymous or public. My two cents worth? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 16:44 To: Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Some people are much more candid if they can be anonymous. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:17 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised That is another approach, but we still favor a default public response, since we should want as many candid, informed, public responses as possible. Curious to hear Westlake and others' views on this. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Here?s another approach for consideration (suggested by Rubens Kuhl from the RySG): ?I don't think that defaulting either to confidential or not confidential should be done. This first question can be mandatory so the respondent picks whether it's confidential or not, instead of us, IPC, ICANN or Westlake.? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Still has the wrong default, in IPC's opinion, and per general ICANN notions of transparency. How about this? ?Your identity will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, if you so elect by checking the box below. Otherwise your identified response will be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff.? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Would the following rewording work: ?Identity of responders will not be made available publicly. Your identity will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are willing for your identity to be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate in the consent box below? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:46 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Good then we at least agree as to the body of the responses. But the current draft instructions seem clear that the entire response will remain confidential only to Westlake, not even to Staff: Individual responses will not be made available publicly. Your input will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are willing for your individual feedback to be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate in the consent box below ( ) I consent to the independent reviewer sharing my individual feedback with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff for the express purpose of assisting with the 2014 GNSO Review. We still may disagree as to whether names should be attached to the response by default. We in the IPC think giving an 'opt out' to public disclosure is sufficient protection for the relatively few people who would want to keep their name out of the purview of the Working Party and/or public. When evaluating the responses, it is important to know who is speaking. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, If I am understanding you correctly, I wonder whether we are talking past each other. In advocating for confidentiality, I am not saying that responses should be confidential but rather that the identity of the responder should be kept confidential by default. I think that the responses should be publicly available. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Chuck. In a nutshell, we think the survey responses will be very important, and should not generally be kept secret. In order for the Working Party to do its job, and for the public to properly weigh in on the recommendations of Westlake and/or the Working Party, the underlying data generally needs to be made available. ICANN is an open and transparent organization, data and opinions are typically shared publicly for the benefit, input and buy-in of the entire community. Those respondents who wish to maintain confidentiality of their response can elect to do so, and so that should address any confidentiality concern. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, There has been pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this. Several people have asked for the IPC rationale. I communicated that the main reason I heard was transparency. If you can add to that, I will share it with the RySG. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Chuck, Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake justification for making this change. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick > wrote: Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here. Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Wed Jul 30 20:21:20 2014 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 20:21:20 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <41105d976b0949da878f4a881c3806c0@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFC83@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFDD7@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFEA2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFFA3@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C00AB@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <41105d976b0949da878f4a881c3806c0@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <171c84adb37f4a72afcc861860b5a1ba@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Jen, Chuck, Mike and members of the GNSO Review Working Party, Richard Westlake of Westlake Governance has provided the following clarification on the topic of confidentiality. We propose that the default condition should be that the identity of the responder will be confidential to Westlake Governance. All other aspects of the response besides identity will NOT be confidential and will be shared with the GNSO Review Working Party and staff, as well as be referenced in the GNSO Review Report, as applicable. Our rationale for this position is as follows: 1. Alignment with the method used for one-on-one interviews. When independent reviewers conduct interviews, it is a best practice to provide the interviewee with the assurance that their identity will be kept confidential to the interviewer, unless they otherwise direct the interviewer. However, comments and observations may be referenced and cited in the analysis and the report as appropriate. In our professional opinion, creating two different treatments for responses via online tool as compared to one-on-one interviews would be confusing to the responders. 2. Encouragement for honest and complete feedback. Based on our extensive experience, we know that promise of confidentiality of identity encourages responders to provide honest and complete feedback. 3. Sufficiently detailed information is still available, to the GNSO Review Working Party, the staff and the public ? i.e., demographic data and full responses. The only aspect of a given response that would be confidential is the individual?s name and email address. Additionally, we will wherever relevant qualify the source of a given comment within our analysis and report ? for example, ?Board member?, ?Staff?, Member of another SO/AC? or ?Member of the GNSO Community?. All additional comments and feedback received on the 360 Assessment have been captured and are being addressed by the Westlake team and staff. We will provide a summary of disposition shortly. Thank you for your diligent participation in this process and valuable insights. Larisa From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:51 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised I completely agree and think it?s important we clearly help the survey taker to understand that they can elect for their comments and responses to be anonymous. I don?t think we want to mislead the survey taker into thinking that their comments won?t be made available to the community or considered by the Review Party if they elect for confidentiality. My understanding is that we would still have data points on those responses and the qualitative comments, we just would attribute to a specific person but rather categorically to how the survey taker responded to questions about ICANN experience. Larisa or Richard, could you please confirm that?s how the data will be aggregated and presented to the Working Party and the community? Thank you to everyone for continued debate and participation in this discussion. jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm, named top u.s. trademark law firm by corp intl 2013 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:44 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Some people are much more candid if they can be anonymous. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:17 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised That is another approach, but we still favor a default public response, since we should want as many candid, informed, public responses as possible. Curious to hear Westlake and others' views on this. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Here?s another approach for consideration (suggested by Rubens Kuhl from the RySG): ?I don't think that defaulting either to confidential or not confidential should be done. This first question can be mandatory so the respondent picks whether it's confidential or not, instead of us, IPC, ICANN or Westlake.? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Still has the wrong default, in IPC's opinion, and per general ICANN notions of transparency. How about this? ?Your identity will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, if you so elect by checking the box below. Otherwise your identified response will be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff.? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Would the following rewording work: ?Identity of responders will not be made available publicly. Your identity will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are willing for your identity to be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate in the consent box below? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:46 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Good then we at least agree as to the body of the responses. But the current draft instructions seem clear that the entire response will remain confidential only to Westlake, not even to Staff: Individual responses will not be made available publicly. Your input will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are willing for your individual feedback to be shared for further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate in the consent box below ( ) I consent to the independent reviewer sharing my individual feedback with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff for the express purpose of assisting with the 2014 GNSO Review. We still may disagree as to whether names should be attached to the response by default. We in the IPC think giving an 'opt out' to public disclosure is sufficient protection for the relatively few people who would want to keep their name out of the purview of the Working Party and/or public. When evaluating the responses, it is important to know who is speaking. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, If I am understanding you correctly, I wonder whether we are talking past each other. In advocating for confidentiality, I am not saying that responses should be confidential but rather that the identity of the responder should be kept confidential by default. I think that the responses should be publicly available. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Chuck. In a nutshell, we think the survey responses will be very important, and should not generally be kept secret. In order for the Working Party to do its job, and for the public to properly weigh in on the recommendations of Westlake and/or the Working Party, the underlying data generally needs to be made available. ICANN is an open and transparent organization, data and opinions are typically shared publicly for the benefit, input and buy-in of the entire community. Those respondents who wish to maintain confidentiality of their response can elect to do so, and so that should address any confidentiality concern. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, There has been pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this. Several people have asked for the IPC rationale. I communicated that the main reason I heard was transparency. If you can add to that, I will share it with the RySG. Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Chuck, Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Mike, Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake justification for making this change. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick > wrote: Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here. Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 864 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 1028 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 811 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Wed Jul 30 23:05:12 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 23:05:12 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1231@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> I just completed the survey in a little over 30 minutes. I answered questions for the GNSO Council and the RySG but I did not respond the last three open ended questions. I think the assessment is looking very good. Because working groups are such an important part of the GNSO, I think it is unfortunate that there are no questions about them. At the same time I also am not in favor of trying to accomplish too much in one survey so I am not advocating that we add more questions at this time. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:50 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Richard G A Westlake Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here. Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at rodenbaugh.com Thu Jul 31 00:12:10 2014 From: mike at rodenbaugh.com (Mike Rodenbaugh) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 17:12:10 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <171c84adb37f4a72afcc861860b5a1ba@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BC869@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFC83@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFDD7@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFEA2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493BFFA3@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C00AB@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <41105d976b0949da878f4a881c3806c0@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <171c84adb37f4a72afcc861860b5a1ba@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: Thanks Larisa and Richard. Chuck's suggestion of providing a clear and equal choice to each respondent is preferred. Those who want confidentiality will still have it. Relatively few survey respondents will be interviewed. And it is better to have the identity of the particular 'SO Member', etc. than such a generic reference. There are SO Members for one day, and for 15 years; same with Board members. Generic references do not allow the community to analyze whether perhaps Westlake or Staff are giving too much or too little weight to various speakers. Again it is core to ICANN's mandate that we have transparent discussion, so that should be encouraged by default. If not, then at least the clear choice ought to be presented whether to identify oneself or not. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote: > Jen, Chuck, Mike and members of the GNSO Review Working Party, > > > > Richard Westlake of Westlake Governance has provided the following > clarification on the topic of confidentiality. > > We propose that the default condition should be that the *identity* of > the responder will be confidential to Westlake Governance. All other > aspects of the response besides identity will NOT be confidential and will > be shared with the GNSO Review Working Party and staff, as well as be > referenced in the GNSO Review Report, as applicable. Our rationale for > this position is as follows: > > 1. *Alignment with the method used for one-on-one interviews*. When > independent reviewers conduct interviews, it is a best practice to provide > the interviewee with the assurance that their identity will be kept > confidential to the interviewer, unless they otherwise direct the > interviewer. However, comments and observations may be referenced and > cited in the analysis and the report as appropriate. In our professional > opinion, creating two different treatments for responses via online tool as > compared to one-on-one interviews would be confusing to the responders. > > 2. *Encouragement for honest and complete feedback*. Based on our > extensive experience, we know that promise of confidentiality of identity > encourages responders to provide honest and complete feedback. > > 3. *Sufficiently detailed information is still available, to the > GNSO Review Working Party, the staff and the public *? i.e., demographic > data and full responses. The only aspect of a given response that would be > confidential is the individual?s name and email address. Additionally, we > will wherever relevant qualify the source of a given comment within our > analysis and report ? for example, ?Board member?, ?Staff?, Member of > another SO/AC? or ?Member of the GNSO Community?. > > All additional comments and feedback received on the 360 Assessment have > been captured and are being addressed by the Westlake team and staff. We > will provide a summary of disposition shortly. > > > > Thank you for your diligent participation in this process and valuable > insights. > > > > Larisa > > *From:* Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:51 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Mike Rodenbaugh > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > I completely agree and think it?s important we clearly help the survey > taker to understand that they can elect for their comments and responses to > be anonymous. > > > > I don?t think we want to mislead the survey taker into thinking that their > comments won?t be made available to the community or considered by the > Review Party if they elect for confidentiality. My understanding is that > we would still have data points on those responses and the qualitative > comments, we just would attribute to a specific person but rather > categorically to how the survey taker responded to questions about ICANN > experience. > > > > Larisa or Richard, could you please confirm that?s how the data will be > aggregated and presented to the Working Party and the community? > > > > Thank you to everyone for continued debate and participation in this > discussion. > > > > *jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB* > > Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm > > managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual > property law firm, *named top u.s. trademark law firm by corp intl 2013* > > *IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013* > > *513.746.2801 <513.746.2801>* > > *Follow Me:* *[image: Description: Description: Description: Description: > cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* > *[image: Description: Description: Description: Description: > cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* *[image: > Description: Description: Description: Description: > cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* > > *Follow My Blog* > > *Domain Names Rewired* > > > > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] *On > Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:44 PM > *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Some people are much more candid if they can be anonymous. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com ] > > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:17 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > That is another approach, but we still favor a default public response, > since we should want as many candid, informed, public responses as > possible. Curious to hear Westlake and others' views on this. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Here?s another approach for consideration (suggested by Rubens Kuhl from > the RySG): ?I don't think that defaulting either to confidential or not > confidential should be done. This first question can be mandatory so the > respondent picks whether it's confidential or not, instead of us, IPC, > ICANN or Westlake.? > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:48 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Still has the wrong default, in IPC's opinion, and per general ICANN > notions of transparency. How about this? > > > > ?*Your **identity** will remain confidential to Westlake as the > independent reviewer, if you so elect by checking the box below. Otherwise > your identified response will be shared for further analysis with the GNSO > Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff.*? > > > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: > > Would the following rewording work: > > > > ?*Identity of responders **will not be made available publicly. Your * > *identity** will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent > reviewer, unless you are willing for your **identity** to be shared for > further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN > staff, please indicate in the consent box below*? > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:46 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Good then we at least agree as to the body of the responses. But the > current draft instructions seem clear that the entire response will remain > confidential only to Westlake, not even to Staff: > > > > *Individual responses will not be made available publicly. Your input will > remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are > willing for your individual feedback to be shared for further analysis with > the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate > in the consent box below* > > ( ) I consent to the independent reviewer sharing my individual feedback > with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff for the > express purpose of assisting with the 2014 GNSO Review. > > > > We still may disagree as to whether names should be attached to the > response by default. We in the IPC think giving an 'opt out' to public > disclosure is sufficient protection for the relatively few people who would > want to keep their name out of the purview of the Working Party and/or > public. When evaluating the responses, it is important to know who is > speaking. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: > > Mike, > > > > If I am understanding you correctly, I wonder whether we are talking past > each other. In advocating for confidentiality, I am not saying that > responses should be confidential but rather that the identity of the > responder should be kept confidential by default. I think that the > responses should be publicly available. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Thanks Chuck. In a nutshell, we think the survey responses will be very > important, and should not generally be kept secret. In order for the > Working Party to do its job, and for the public to properly weigh in on the > recommendations of Westlake and/or the Working Party, the underlying data > generally needs to be made available. ICANN is an open and transparent > organization, data and opinions are typically shared publicly for the > benefit, input and buy-in of the entire community. Those respondents who > wish to maintain confidentiality of their response can elect to do so, and > so that should address any confidentiality concern. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Mike, > > > > There has been pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this. > Several people have asked for the IPC rationale. I communicated that the > main reason I heard was transparency. If you can add to that, I will share > it with the RySG. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Chuck, > > > > Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change > to the prior draft's default. After our London interaction, I figured the > issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that > has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Mike, > > > > Unless I missed it, I didn?t hear anyone but you advocating for the > default being ?public response? but I forwarded the IPC position to the > RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh > *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM > *To:* Larisa B. Gurnick > *Cc:* gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised > > > > Thanks Larisa. IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been > changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only > be viewed by Westlake. I did not note consensus in the Working Party for > such a change. IPC's position is that the default should be public > response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their > particular response to remain confidential. We see no justification for > 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of > ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization. The Working Party and the > public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can > adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them. > > > > Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake > justification for making this change. > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick < > larisa.gurnick at icann.org> wrote: > > Dear All, > > The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback > received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here > . Please provide your > final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies *by > August 1, 23:59 UTC*. > > > > The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions > pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A > responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these > groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as > he/she would like. > > > > The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear > roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options > available to the responder. > > > > Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing > and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of > acronyms, etc. > > > > Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment > useful and informative. > > > > *Larisa B. Gurnick* > > Director, Strategic Initiatives > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > larisa.gurnick at icann.org > > 310 383-8995 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 864 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 1028 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Thu Jul 31 15:14:55 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:14:55 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1231@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1231@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <025001cfacd2$32f1c9d0$98d55d70$@dotsportllc.com> Dear Chuck and all, Yes, but. .you make a good point that we are not delving into Working Groups at all when, in point of fact, the changes made during the last GNSO review moved us to the Working Group model. For my part, I think it would be prudent to have at least one question on the effectiveness of WGs and perhaps another to flesh out the community's overall view of them. Let's do our best to address this key aspect. Thanks for bringing it forward Chuck. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 19:05 To: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Richard G A Westlake Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised I just completed the survey in a little over 30 minutes. I answered questions for the GNSO Council and the RySG but I did not respond the last three open ended questions. I think the assessment is looking very good. Because working groups are such an important part of the GNSO, I think it is unfortunate that there are no questions about them. At the same time I also am not in favor of trying to accomplish too much in one survey so I am not advocating that we add more questions at this time. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:50 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Richard G A Westlake Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here . Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Thu Jul 31 15:41:35 2014 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:41:35 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: Thank you for providing the updated survey. I noted my comments below: * Should there be a "Save" button at the bottom of each page so it is clear how to stop and come back? Is there a log in to know how to come back to where you were? It wasn't completely clear to me. * Can you allow the program to move forward without answering a question in case you want to come back to it? It's frustrating if you want to come back to something or want to review all the questions first and it doesn't allow you to proceed. We could lose some people if they become frustrated. * It may also be helpful to have a link on each page to definitions or FAQs in case someone is unclear about a question. * I know we are translating this into multiple languages, how would the survey taker select a language other than English? * I think it is relatively easy to use and I think the open text boxes for each question should ensure that those with opinions can voice those opinions even if the question is unclear or does not directly address their point. Thanks so much for all your hard work on this! I will look forward to seeing the survey live and to our discussion next week on promotion and outreach. Have a great afternoon! Jen jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm Co-Managing Partner, Wolfe Sadler Breen Morasch & Colby, intellectual property law, INTL Trademark Law Firm of the Year 2013 513.746.2801 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 Follow Me: [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:50 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Richard G A Westlake Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here. Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Thu Jul 31 18:09:02 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 18:09:02 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <025001cfacd2$32f1c9d0$98d55d70$@dotsportllc.com> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1231@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <025001cfacd2$32f1c9d0$98d55d70$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1EDA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> I am fine with that Ron if it doesn't cause too much delay. Chuck From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:15 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Dear Chuck and all, Yes, but... ...you make a good point that we are not delving into Working Groups at all when, in point of fact, the changes made during the last GNSO review moved us to the Working Group model. For my part, I think it would be prudent to have at least one question on the effectiveness of WGs and perhaps another to flesh out the community's overall view of them. Let's do our best to address this key aspect. Thanks for bringing it forward Chuck. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 19:05 To: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Richard G A Westlake Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised I just completed the survey in a little over 30 minutes. I answered questions for the GNSO Council and the RySG but I did not respond the last three open ended questions. I think the assessment is looking very good. Because working groups are such an important part of the GNSO, I think it is unfortunate that there are no questions about them. At the same time I also am not in favor of trying to accomplish too much in one survey so I am not advocating that we add more questions at this time. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:50 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Richard G A Westlake Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here. Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Thu Jul 31 18:16:30 2014 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 18:16:30 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1EDA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <571048233dbe44d688e88d4393e01550@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1231@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <025001cfacd2$32f1c9d0$98d55d70$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493C1EDA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Chuck and Ron, Please note that the work of the working groups will likely be considered by Westlake as part of the other data gathering phases of the review - review and analysis of documents and one on one interviews. The GNSO Review Working Group along with policy staff can provide guidance to Westlake Governance on which Working Groups would be good candidates for review. As for the inclusion of the Working Group model in the 360 Assessment, what do you think about the following: New question: The general purpose of a GNSO Working Group is to accomplish a chartered task by enlisting broad participation from throughout the Internet community. The Working Group model implemented as the result of the last GNSO Review is effective in accomplishing its general purpose. The question would have all the same answer options as other questions, including a text box for additional feedback. Thanks, Larisa From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:09 AM To: Ron Andruff; Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised I am fine with that Ron if it doesn't cause too much delay. Chuck From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:15 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Dear Chuck and all, Yes, but... ...you make a good point that we are not delving into Working Groups at all when, in point of fact, the changes made during the last GNSO review moved us to the Working Group model. For my part, I think it would be prudent to have at least one question on the effectiveness of WGs and perhaps another to flesh out the community's overall view of them. Let's do our best to address this key aspect. Thanks for bringing it forward Chuck. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 19:05 To: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Richard G A Westlake Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised I just completed the survey in a little over 30 minutes. I answered questions for the GNSO Council and the RySG but I did not respond the last three open ended questions. I think the assessment is looking very good. Because working groups are such an important part of the GNSO, I think it is unfortunate that there are no questions about them. At the same time I also am not in favor of trying to accomplish too much in one survey so I am not advocating that we add more questions at this time. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:50 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Richard G A Westlake Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised Dear All, The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week. The revised 360 Assessment is available here. Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies by August 1, 23:59 UTC. The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like. The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder. Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc. Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: