[gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions
Stephane Van Gelder
svg at milathan.com
Wed Jun 11 20:07:39 UTC 2014
Thanks Marika, very useful.
It's no surprise that there is no such provision for the CSG, as that group
delegates this sort of thing to its constituencies.
I am however surprised that the ISP and the IPC don't have such a
provision. Is there any way of asking them just to make sure, rather than
just relying on their charters?
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 11 June 2014 10:10, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
> Having looked at the different SG/C charters, I have found the following
> provisions that deal with membership/voting in more than one SG/C:
>
> *RySG *(see
> http://www.gtldregistries.org/sites/gtldregistries.org/files/Charter_of_the_gTLD_Registries_Stakeholder_Group.pdf
> )
>
> - A Registry that is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership
> with, or affiliated with any entity that votes in another stakeholder group
> or constituency in either house of the GNSO is not eligible for voting
> membership in the RySG. Any question regarding eligibility or exceptions
> shall be determined by a vote of the RySG.
>
> *RrSG *(current charter does not appear to address this issue, but it is
> covered in the revised charter that is currently posted for public comment,
> see
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-rrsg-charter-redline-30may14-en.pdf
> )
>
>
> - Potential Conflicts with another Stakeholder Group (SG)
>
> If a Member serves as a registrar with no unaffiliated third-party
> registrants, or is under common ownership with an entity that in the last
> 12 months: has voted in another ICANN SG or any Constituency of another SG;
> or holds a signed Registry contract with ICANN that includes an exemption
> from the Registry Operator Code of Conduct (Specification 9 of the 2013
> standard registry contract) that prohibits a Registry to directly or
> indirectly show any preference or provide any special consideration to any
> registrar with respect to operational access to registry systems and
> related registry services, unless comparable opportunities to qualify for
> such preferences or considerations are made available to all registrars on
> substantially similar terms and subject to substantially similar
> conditions; then their Registered or Non-Registered representatives shall
> not be eligible to hold office in the RrSG for the Executive Committee,
> NomCom, or GNSO, or any other future electable RrSG position. In addition,
> a Voting Member cannot have a representative who is also a voting member or
> represents a voting member in another SG.
>
> Any disagreement regarding whether an individual is eligible to hold
> office shall be decided by a majority vote of the RrSG.
>
>
> *NPOC *(see current charter at
> https://community.icann.org/display/NPOCC/Charter)
>
> - Committee Structure and Officer Requirements - 2.2 EligibilitySections
> 2.2 through 2.10 provide rules and requirements for all NPOC leadership
> positions elected by the membership and, as such, apply to the Chair,
> Vice-Chair, Secretariat, and Chairs of the Membership, Policy, and
> Communication Committees.
>
> To be eligible for a committee officer position, candidates must:
>
> 2.2.1 Have been his/her organization's representative of record, in
> good standing, for a period of at least six (6) months;
>
> 2.2.2 Not already hold a committee leadership position;
>
> 2.2.3 Not be currently serving as a GNSO Council Member; and
>
> 2.2.4 Not be NPOC Chair if serving on the ICANN Nominating Committee,
> as an officer of another ICANN constituency or as an officer of the
> At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC).
>
> *NCUC* (see current charter at http://www.ncuc.org/governance/bylaws/)
>
> - B. Ineligible organizations. The membership of the NCUC
> specifically excludes:
>
> 1. Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold
> government office and/or elect government officials
>
> 2. Commercial organizations and associations of or for the
> benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non-profit in form)
>
> 3. Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU
> with ICANN, or are represented in ICANN through another Supporting
> Organization
>
> *NCSG* (see current charter at
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf)
>
>
> - 2.2.1. *Ineligible organizations.*
>
> The membership of the NCSG specifically excludes:
>
> 1. Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold government office
> and/or elect government officials;
>
> 2. Commercial organizations and associations that advocate for the
> benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non---profit in form);
>
> 3. Organizations that are represented in ICANN through another Supporting
> Organization specified in the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO Stakeholder Group;
>
> 4. Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU with
> ICANN;
>
> 5. Government organizations or government departments whether local, regional
> or national; and
>
> 6. Intergovernmental organizations whose membership primarily includes nation
> states.
>
> *ISPCP* (see current charter at https://community.icann.org/x/EgWpAQ)
>
> - No specific provision found
>
> *IPC *(see current charter at http://www.ipconstituency.org/bylaws/)
>
> - No specific provision found
>
> *BC *(see current charter at http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm)
>
> - Membership criteria: 3.3.2 To avoid conflicts of interest this
> excludes: not for profit entities excepting trade associations representing
> for profit entities; entities whose prime business is a registry, registry
> operator, prospective registry, registrar, reseller, or otherwise related
> to domain name supply, or similar; other groups whose interests may not be
> aligned with business users described in Article 3.1. Trade associations
> for whom a minority of members may belong to or could belong to any of the
> other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership.
>
> *CSG* (see current charter at
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/csg-charter-01nov10-en.pdf)
>
> - No specific provision found
>
> Obviously I may have missed something, so please feel free to correct or
> add to this information, but in short it looks like some SG/C deal with
> this issue through the membership or officer eligibility criteria while
> others look more specifically at who is eligible to vote while some do not
> appear to have any specific provisions in place.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> From: Stephane Van Gelder <svg at milathan.com>
> Date: Tuesday 10 June 2014 23:58
> To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>
> Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>, "
> gnso-review-dt at icann.org" <gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions
>
> I don't believe this is an issue as I think all SGs in the CPH and all
> constituencies in the NCPH have rules that prohibit a voting member from
> being a voting member of another group in the GNSO.
>
> Can staff perhaps enlighten us on this?
>
> 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 10 June 2014 19:48, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> It's something that probably needs to be addressed if it hasn't been
>> already.
>>
>> I'd be quite disturbed if a single company was voting in multiple places
>> on policies etc., that benefited them
>>
>> I don't have an issue with companies / organisations having membership
>> (of some kind) in multiple groups. If, for example, we were to start
>> selling more transit etc., then we'd probably want to follow the ISPs more
>> closely. But voting is a different matter.
>>
>> 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 <%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072>
>> 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
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:
>> owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:44 PM
>> To: Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions
>>
>>
>> I know some structures (like the RrSG) have either adopted changes to
>> their bylaws, or are working to, that would prohibit members from voting if
>> they are voting members in other SGs. But it is not clear to me how this
>> is enforced on a community-wide basis.
>>
>> J.
>>
>>
>> On 6/10/14, 12:28 , "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >I thought there was already a rule somewhere in the SIC documents about
>> >being able to vote in only one SG. Of course a company with many
>> >divisions could find a way to be a member of several. Or could have
>> >staff members join multiple Constituencies or SGs as individuals.
>> >
>> >But how would one prevent that? Of course one way to start is the
>> >requirement that all SGs list all of their members on a public web site.
>> > I think wee already have that requirement, somewhere, but I am not
>> >sure it is followed by all with equal fervor.
>> >
>> >Perhaps we should also have a question about the degree to which the
>> >various SGs and Cs follow SIC rules.
>> >
>> >avri
>> >
>> >
>> >On 10-Jun-14 19:07, Volker Greimann wrote:
>> >>
>> >> One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to
>> >> devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of
>> >> one entity within multiple constituencies.
>> >> Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the
>> >> entire structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by
>> >> specialized interest groups that happen to fit more than one
>> constituency.
>> >>
>> >> This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational
>> >> issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an entity.
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >>
>> >> Volker
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Am 06.06.2014 23:44, schrieb Ron Andruff:
>> >>> 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]
>> >>> 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 related. The community selects
>> >>>three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part
>> >>>of that.
>> >>>
>> >>> Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage
>> >>> teams?
>> >>> We would be contributing just as much.
>> >>>
>> >>> avri
>> >>>
>> >>> * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140611/1ce6d79a/attachment.html>
More information about the Gnso-review-dt
mailing list