[gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions

[Ron Andruff]

Thanks Stephane. Couldn't have said it better myself!

And I thank Chulk for being as respectful as he always is and judicious, as he always is.  Good that that was called out if someone may have been concerned. 

Chuck and I share a healthy respect for each other and consider ourselves friends, but the bigger connection is our desire to grow ICANN in a sustainable manner.

To be clear, somewhere in the what we are all saying lays the answer.  We just need to frame relevant questions to elicit responses that serve a sustainable ICANN. 

Kind regards,

RA


Ron Andruff
www.lifedotsport.com 

-------- Original message --------
From: Stephane Van Gelder <svg at milathan.com> 
Date: 06/09/2014  17:50  (GMT-05:00) 
To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> 
Cc: Ron Andruff <ra at dotsportllc.com>,gnso-review-dt at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions 
 
No concerns on the back and forth between Ron and you Chuck, especially
since many others such as Volker, James, Avri and myself have also weighed
in ;)

I do agree with you that associating WG failure with GNSO structure issues
is misguided. I do not however think that's what Ron is saying, but I will
not put words into his mouth and let him correct my assumption if it is
false.

In any case, I will repeat what I have already said: questions about
structure should be included in the 360, without any expectations of what
answers they might elicit. Let the review respondents say what they want to
say. Our job here in this group is to make sure they have an opportunity to
say what they want to say.

Thanks,

Stéphane 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 <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/>
----------------
Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com


On 9 June 2014 21:57, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  Ron,
>
>
>
> Let me repeat what I have said already, if most of the people in this
> group wants to add questions regarding structure, I am fine with that.  I
> have said why I opposed that but I am just one person with no more weight
> than anyone else.
>
>
>
> The reason I asked for a list of failures is because I am not convinced
> that "The list of failed WG's is a long one" unless you and I have
> different definitions of failure, which is possible.  So it would really
> helped me if you tell me which ones you think were failures.
>
>
>
> I do not consider the VI WG a failure.  One problem is that the Board gave
> an unrealistic time limit.  But even if they had more time, I am not
> convinced that a consensus could have been reached.
>
>
>
> Also, I don't see how failed WGs would be attributable to GNSO structure,
> so please help me understand your thinking  in that regard.
>
>
>
> I would like to think that you do not you disagree with ICANN Core Value
> 5?  "5. Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to
> promote and sustain a competitive environment."
>
>
>
> I don't understand this: "In the case of the NCPH, there are 5 groups, so
> that NCA vote doesn't have much bearing at all. "  The number of
> constituencies should have nothing to do with it.  The current structure
> gives the NCSG and CSG the same number of votes, so the NCA vote would
> matter.
>
>
>
> For those of you who may be concerned about the back and forth between Ron
> & I, let me assure you that I have the utmost respect for Ron and I
> consider him a friend.  We have worked together in the ICANN world for a
> long time.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 09, 2014 12:54 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment
> Questions
>
>
>
> Chuck,
>
>
>
> Please see my comments in red below.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> RA
>
>
>
> Ron Andruff
>
> dotSport LLC
>
> www.lifedotsport.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2014 09:36
> To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions
>
>
>
> Ron,
>
>
>
> Please provide a list of "the other issues, big and small, that have
> failed more often than not locked in stalemates" if we are going to
> continue this discussion.  That can be done on this list or off list.  I
> think that Stephane is correct that the issue is whether or not to include
> questions related to structure at this time and not to debate whether
> structure is a problem or not.  The reason I entered into the discussion is
> because others stated that it was a problem. RA: The list of failed WG's
> is a long one Chuck, as you know.  We don't need a list of them to aid us
> in what we are trying to do here. The issue here is to include questions
> for respondents to help everyone understand if there is a structural
> problem or not.  Several of us in the NCPH have indicated that we feel
> there is and thus would like to see structural questions asked.
>
>
>
> Why do you consider vertical integration a failure?  The fact that no
> consensus was reached doesn't mean the effort failed.  It could simply mean
> that there was no consensus to be reached.  That should not be taken as
> failure.  RA: Any WG that is removed from finishing its task by the Board
> of Directors is a failed WG.  Consensus was not the issue.  The issue was
> that the VI WG was not able to complete its mandate.  We are living in a
> dream world if we think we should always be able to reach consensus. RA:
> I agree with you on this.  But I would add that the time may be long
> overdue to consider looking at Rough Consensus as a viable option to Full
> Consensus (the top 2 of five ICANN levels of consensus).  Rough consensus
> provides for those who are not in consensus with the larger WG to detail
> their arguments to the contrary just as the U.S. Supreme Court Justices do.  In
> cases where we can't reach consensus, that is a good time to let market
> forces work unless security and stability are at risk. RA: Can't agree
> with this premise.  There is a big gap between reaching consensus and
> letting market forces work, but few at ICANN seem to understand that.
> Sadly, some may feel that holding out on consensus simply advances the
> market forces alternative, which may be more viable to their businesses...
>
>
>
> Regarding the GNSO board candidate, has the NCPH candidate been included
> in that decision?  One of the purposes of putting an NCA into each house
> was to break ties.  That is a key part of the structural design we have.
> The CPH has used this several times where the RySG and RrSG have disagreed;
> the NCA broke the tie.  RA: So it bears noting that in the case of two
> groups in one house the structural design hoped for, works.  In the case of
> the NCPH, there are 5 groups, so that NCA vote doesn't have much bearing at
> all.  We need to review this structure.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [
> mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org <owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org>]
> On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
>
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 5:45 PM
>
> To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org
>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Chuck, James and all,
>
>
>
> As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last one I
> am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an understanding of what I
> believe Avri and I are trying to bring to the fore.  What I am saying is
> that the structure we have now appears to be serving only two groups -
> Registries and Registrars - within all of ICANN.  Those of us who were not
> contracted parties were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to
> how Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to that
> mashup...
>
>
>
> If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment James, re:
>
> the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it is
> commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's interests,
> as examples.  Otherwise the memberships in the various bodies that make up
> the NPCH could not be further from one another in their interests and
> actions.
>
>
>
> So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the NCPH
> is palpable.  It is not dislike of each other, rather different views as
> constituencies.  Thus, we should give the house structure a serious review
> to see if there are other ways to structure the organization so that it
> better serves the institution and likewise the community.
>
>
>
> While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the years,
> the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the other issues,
> big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates,
> e.g.
>
> Vertical Integration.  One result of VI is new registries handpicking even
> trademarked names and putting them into their own registrar to sell for
> $1000's as premium names...  Was that the intended result the Board thought
> would happen when they took that over from the GNSO WG or was that just an
> outcome of a failure of the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...?  I don't know
> the answer, but I do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of
> VI will haunt ICANN for decades to come.  Some may see this example as
> conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what happens
> when the GNSO doesn't work as it could.
>
>
>
> In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get on with
> a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... stakeholder groups,
> houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants (constituencies,
> communities, brands, geos) etc.
>
>
>
> We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and tomorrow's
> (as far as we can anticipate them) needs.  The survey respondents will give
> us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'.  We just have to figure out how to
> put a survey together that asks all of these critical questions.
>
>
>
> A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has also come
> up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the ICANN Board with
> the most highly-qualified representatives.  When I consider how much
> vetting prospective Board members go through via the Nom Com (as a result
> of my participation in 2013 and again this year) I am amazed and appalled
> at how very little vetting those Board members that come through the SG's
> get...
>
> Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical methodology?
>
> Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the community
> would seize on it for all the good reasons one can imagine.  So what
> quality of Board would we get if each constituency/stakeholder group were
> to put forward three candidates for the Nom Com to vet and select one
> from?  Would that raise the bar?  Would such a vetting process remove from
> the Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical,
> yes.
>
> Workable, maybe.  Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors,
> absolutely...
>
>
>
> Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope to
> generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up.  Otherwise, we will
> see change coming from the top down, whether we like it or not.  And then
> what?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> RA
>
>
>
>
>
> Ron Andruff
>
> dotSport LLC
>
> www.lifedotsport.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [
> mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org <owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org>]
>
> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>
> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11
>
> Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org
>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a
>
> >> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's
>
> >> primary role?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without
>
> > months of garbage processing.  It just does not work.  We have great
>
> > trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in
>
> > electing a Board member this time.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Chuck Gomes]  I don't think this
>
> > has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of
>
> > an issue that needs to be dealt with.   I would like to think (maybe
>
> > naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing
>
> > structure.  If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, then
>
> > maybe it should be discussed by the full Council.
>
>
>
> It can't be.  If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and
> gets worse all the time.
>
>
>
> And I certainly can't see discussing it in council.  What is the
> difference between discussing it in the house and in council.  the other
> house is going to give us advice on how to get along.  Not too likely.
>
> In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has never
> been a workable formula.
>
>
>
> Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of their
> neighbors.
>
>
>
> And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did.  And indeed when it
> gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but that is
> not way to live.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious
>
> > that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being
>
> > able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO.  That is a kind of
>
> > dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Chuck
>
> > Gomes]  I think this is kind of an unfair statement.  The reality is
>
> > that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round.  If
>
> > you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to
>
> > rotate the position among the two houses.  I haven't discussed this
>
> > with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as
>
> > long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to
>
> > commit the time.
>
>
>
> Yeah maybe.  But no.  In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH people
> tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever put up a
> candidate that could win because our vote would always split.
>
> Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather funny.
>
> Pathetic humor, but funny.
>
>
>
> >
>
> >> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in
>
> >> general?  I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly.
>
>
>
> On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues.  We mostly all
> know how to behave professionally in council most of the time.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > The Council is not sperate form the GNSO.  The dysfunction is in both
>
> > on the NCPH side.
>
> >
>
> > Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider
>
> > adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks
>
> > like a possible limitation.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly
>
> > be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible.
>
>
>
> That would imbalance the house which would be complicated.
>
> Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members.
>
> >
>
> > But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time.
>
> >
>
> > What I am arguing for is gathering information.  Maybe my perception
>
> > is mine alone.  The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering
>
> > information strikes me as sort of problematic, though.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Chuck Gomes]
>
> > As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering
>
> > the information but just question whether we should do it in this
>
> > exercise, i.e., the timing.
>
>
>
> I do not understand the timing issue.  This is the time.  next time is in
> 3 years.  There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out what
> needs to be done.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions
>
> > won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and
>
> > I am wrong.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask
>
> > questions about structure, I won't fight.  And I didn't say everything
>
> > is wonderful.  Everything is far from wonderful but I am not convinced
>
> > that is largely a factor of structure.
>
>
>
> There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key
> component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a
> critical one.
>
> You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or you put
> together a structure that allows many different alliances to form, with
> these alliance changing over time.  Because of the strict diremption in the
> voting structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, alliances are much more
> difficult.  When I compare the days in the council my last time, with this
> time, the alliance making was far more dynamic in the past.
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info.
>
> >
>
> > But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost
>
> > everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is
>
> > figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members.  But for the
>
> > NCPH it would remove a limitation.
>
> >
>
> > As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that
>
> > one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by
>
> > 5 people.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me.
>
>
>
> (: that is far too few people for a voting population.  The idea that one
> board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by
>
> 13 in another is a problem in accountability.  21 voters is small enough.
> I would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large book and
> add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth.
>
> But I know that is a structural change too far.  The point is a large more
> diverse representative voting populations makes for better democracy, aka
> it is better for accountability
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on
>
> > the community's influence on the GNSO.
>
>
>
> BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee (which
> i was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*.
>
> They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs.
>
>
>
> [Chuck Gomes] I need some
>
> > help understanding this.  BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is providing
>
> > some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and
>
> > representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review.  To me that is much
>
> > more valuable than any vote would be.
>
>
>
> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting.  And she could do
> just as well if she had a vote.  Many people do good jobs in the council
> without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan provides great
> service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The two issues are not
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140609/7c3e197d/attachment.html>