[gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

[Gomes, Chuck]

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 <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> 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<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<mailto: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<tel:%2B1.415.738.8087>
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> 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<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<mailto: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<tel:%2B1.415.738.8087>
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> 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<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<mailto: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<tel:%2B1.415.738.8087>
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> 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<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<mailto: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<tel:%2B1.415.738.8087>
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> 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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B1.415.738.8087>
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick <larisa.gurnick at icann.org<mailto: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<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSO360ReviewUATv3>.  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<mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org>
310 383-8995<tel:310%20383-8995>







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140729/14c9e307/attachment.html>