From cgomes at Verisign.com Fri May 1 23:06:34 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 23:06:34 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - Westlake Draft Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B1142@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Thank you very much for everyone who contributed to the production of this draft report and especially to Westlake and ICANN staff. It is a significant piece of work. In the attached version of the report I inserted 47 comments and also made some minor edits that are redlined. My comments vary from personal support of recommendations made to questions about intent to clarifications of points that I think are inaccurate. I have no idea how we plan to structure the two upcoming meetings but because of the large number of comments I made, I thought it would be better to put them right in the document. As we work together to finalize the report, I would like to suggest that a full redline be created of all the final changes made from the draft that was distributed on April 29 to the final version. This would be for Working Party members only. Considering the length of the report, I believe that will make it much easier for each of us review all the final edits made. 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, April 29, 2015 2:54 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Westlake Draft Report Dear members of the GNSO Review Working Party, Attached is Westlake's Draft Report, incorporating your feedback from several weeks ago, along with additional work completed by their team. Westlake also submitted the attached Summary of the Working Party's comments and how they were resolved. These documents will be available for your convenience on the GNSO Review Wiki. At your request, this Draft Report is intended for GNSO Review Working Party's consideration, prior to being posted for Public Comment. (As a reminder, included below is the Review Timeline.) It represents work in process, with the goal to ensure that the Final Report (expected at the end of August) is useful in fostering continuous improvement. Westlake has added Section 1: Report Summary which provides a useful overview. Appendix 2: Survey quantitative summary results was distributed previously and can be found on the GNSO Review Wiki. Continuing Opportunities for Dialogue and Feedback The ongoing dialogue and engagement with Westlake continues with two working sessions in May to discuss the Draft Report. - 4 May @ 15:00-17:00 UTC - 12 May @ 19:00-20:30 UTC (if needed) - Staff sent calendar invites for these two meetings some time ago - please let Charla know if you don't have this information. Westlake will issue a Draft Report for Public Comment on 1 June, after considering your further comments and feedback over the course of the next several weeks. The entire community will have the opportunity to provide comments during the Public Comment period (1 June - 20 July). Section 1: Report Summary will be translated into UN languages, plus Portuguese. Various other outreach and engagement activities are underway. Westlake is preparing a brief video highlighting key points of the report, to facilitate community engagement. Staff is planning briefings and additional opportunities for interaction with the GNSO and other community members interested in providing feedback, during ICANN53. Staff would welcome your ideas and suggestions of other ways to engage the community during the Public Comment period. GNSO Review Timeline [cid:image001.png at 01D0826B.769D0D60] 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: 36527 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft v1 - delivery version for GNSO Review WP - April 2015 with Gomes input.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 7834443 bytes Desc: Draft v1 - delivery version for GNSO Review WP - April 2015 with Gomes input.docx URL: From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Fri May 1 23:43:01 2015 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 23:43:01 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - Westlake Draft Report In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B1142@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B1142@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <2f73ee892c784221bda1f2e8235ae764@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Chuck, Thank you for taking the time to read and consider Westlake's Draft Report and for your feedback. Staff appreciate your detailed approach and I am sure that the Westlake team will agree that your comments and questions in advance of the Monday meeting are extremely helpful. Jen is considering the agenda proposed by staff and the most effective way to provide the Working Party with an overview of the Draft Report while ensuring that everyone's questions and feedback are heard and addressed. We look forward to a productive meeting on Monday. Have a nice weekend, Larisa From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 4:07 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: GNSO Review - Westlake Draft Report Thank you very much for everyone who contributed to the production of this draft report and especially to Westlake and ICANN staff. It is a significant piece of work. In the attached version of the report I inserted 47 comments and also made some minor edits that are redlined. My comments vary from personal support of recommendations made to questions about intent to clarifications of points that I think are inaccurate. I have no idea how we plan to structure the two upcoming meetings but because of the large number of comments I made, I thought it would be better to put them right in the document. As we work together to finalize the report, I would like to suggest that a full redline be created of all the final changes made from the draft that was distributed on April 29 to the final version. This would be for Working Party members only. Considering the length of the report, I believe that will make it much easier for each of us review all the final edits made. 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, April 29, 2015 2:54 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Westlake Draft Report Dear members of the GNSO Review Working Party, Attached is Westlake's Draft Report, incorporating your feedback from several weeks ago, along with additional work completed by their team. Westlake also submitted the attached Summary of the Working Party's comments and how they were resolved. These documents will be available for your convenience on the GNSO Review Wiki. At your request, this Draft Report is intended for GNSO Review Working Party's consideration, prior to being posted for Public Comment. (As a reminder, included below is the Review Timeline.) It represents work in process, with the goal to ensure that the Final Report (expected at the end of August) is useful in fostering continuous improvement. Westlake has added Section 1: Report Summary which provides a useful overview. Appendix 2: Survey quantitative summary results was distributed previously and can be found on the GNSO Review Wiki. Continuing Opportunities for Dialogue and Feedback The ongoing dialogue and engagement with Westlake continues with two working sessions in May to discuss the Draft Report. - 4 May @ 15:00-17:00 UTC - 12 May @ 19:00-20:30 UTC (if needed) - Staff sent calendar invites for these two meetings some time ago - please let Charla know if you don't have this information. Westlake will issue a Draft Report for Public Comment on 1 June, after considering your further comments and feedback over the course of the next several weeks. The entire community will have the opportunity to provide comments during the Public Comment period (1 June - 20 July). Section 1: Report Summary will be translated into UN languages, plus Portuguese. Various other outreach and engagement activities are underway. Westlake is preparing a brief video highlighting key points of the report, to facilitate community engagement. Staff is planning briefings and additional opportunities for interaction with the GNSO and other community members interested in providing feedback, during ICANN53. Staff would welcome your ideas and suggestions of other ways to engage the community during the Public Comment period. GNSO Review Timeline [cid:image001.png at 01D0826B.769D0D60] 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: 36527 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From avri at acm.org Sun May 3 16:04:35 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 12:04:35 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Personal comment on newest revision of the Westlake review Message-ID: <55464713.7050100@acm.org> These comments are my own personal comments and do not reflect a negotiated set of comments from amongst the NCSG members of the Working party. While I can personally support most of the recommendations made by Westlake in the report, I do have questions and concerns with some of the discussions in document. First I will mention the specific recommendations for which I have questions, later I list comments based on their page number. * Rec 22 seems too limited. Shouldn?t the GNSO council also concern itself with the subject having been adequately covered. More discussion below. * Rec 26 seems to include the issue that the rules for new constituencies have not been followed. While Westlake, and many others, do not like the rules as established by the Board?s SIC, I do not believe there is evidence of those rules having be flaunted or otherwise ignored. It should also be noted that the methods for initiating new constituencies was only created for the NCPH and not for the CPH. So perhaps a recommendation needs include some discussion of creating a set of rules applicable to both houses equally. I agree that the default should include creating the new constituencies, though perhaps we need a lighter weight notion of constituency that is topical or based on interest, that is easier to create and sunset. I also believe that constituency creation needs to be done according to a set of rules and that they need to be created in the proper stakeholder groups. I think the evidence of the possible constituencies Westlake discussed is that they did not apply to the correct stakeholder group. One could question whether the current setup of the GNSO allowed any proper place for these constituencies. An issue that could be discussed is whether the division of the GNSO in 4 SG, leaves some organizations homeless as they may either fit into any of the 4 SGs, or may be hybrid organizations that cannot find a home in a strictly segmented set of stakeholder groups. Is there a SG for every possible constituency? * Page 13 Complexity deters newcomers. Is the report assuming that complexity can be removed, or that it be mitigated by better explanations. * Page 14 In addition, the current structure of the GNSO has been in place for only about three years. From the Westlake Review Team?s professional experience of structural change in many organisations of differing types, this represents only a relatively short time for it to become firmly established and for people to be fully familiar with it. The review could also have included an analysis of why such an oppositional organization arrangement was a good thing that should be allowed to become firmly established. I question the degree to which the deleterious effects have been adequately studied. In most all of the organization dynamics literature I have ever read, there is a negative effect to creating a set of oppositional structures, as was done in the past GNSO reform. Westlake could have done a great service by including an analysis of this situation and the many ways in which this oppositional setup has affected the GNSO. Yes, we have learned to live with it, but largely we do that by avoiding the contentious issues as much as possible. Even Section 9 of the Westlake report that has an extensive discussion of the structural issue does not recommend further study. Since Westlake does not wish to recommend further work on this subject, I recommend that the GNSO Review Party make its own recommendation vis a vis further work on this topic. Various members of the Board have been quite outspoken on the idea that in the ICANN bottom-up model, if we don?t like the structure, then we should recommend a way to fix it. We do not need a review or a SIC to give us permission to fix what needs to be fixed. We should just do it. Perhaps this is an issue that needs to be taken to GNSO Council. * Page 40 The ATRT2 figures are from 2013. Has there been any work done to check and see whether there has been any change since then or what the rate of change is? * Page 43, The description of the Policy & Implementation team work seems incomplete and dated. Might be worth giving a timestamp for when that description was made. * Page 50 The average length of a PDP is between 2 and 3 years All the other figures in that section appear to be in days. Would be interesting to know what the actual average was in days. 2-3 years is such a wide range. Standard deviation would also be interesting. This comments also relates to the charts on Section 9. At the very least, there should be annotation that this data come from before outreach and does not show any effects that might have been achieved by the outreach program. * Page 71 Among the things I have assumed the council should ensure, in addition to those listed, is that all of the issues have had a full exploration and that the opinions of all stakeholders as is possible has been taken adequately into account. As this does not figure on the Westlake list, I am wondering whether they consider this an inappropriate activity for the council. Does Westlake consider it appropriate for the GNSO council to send a report back to a WG if they feel the work has not been complete in respect to diversity of view or full discussion of substance? There are issues concerned with the substance of an issue, yet Westlake seems to indicate that the council should have no concern for the substance. * Page 72 We acknowledge that the Board is the peak governing body of ICANN, so it would be inappropriate to limit its authority The current CWG Accountability has taken issue with a structure where the Board is supreme in all substantive issues. Would Westlake see this as inappropriate? * Page 81 Following the BGC WG review, but before the new and final Constituency process was implemented (2011), staff developed a two-step process (Notice of Intent to form a New Constituency, New Constituency petition and Charter applications) for new constituency applications The Westlake does not note that this procedure was created only for the NCPH. There is not such procedure for creating constituencies in the CPH. It has never been clear why such a policy should only apply to half of the GNSO. Does Westlake have any input on this situation? Did it figure into the analysis? * Page 82 and took no action on the Consumer Constituency as it was still being worked on It should be noted that while the candidate constituency still exists in the NCSG, and it still holds observer seats in all NCSG committees as defined in the NCSG Charter, it has not been active in years. Despite this, no attempt has been made to end its candidacy. Several attempts have been made to resurrect it, and some NCSG members still hold out hope for it (I am a NCSG member of the candidate Consumer constituency as well as of NCUC and supported its creation) completing the ICANN policy and NCSG charter?s required activities for full status. Would seem appropriate to discuss the case completely as opposed to allowing it to appear that this was somehow a prejudicial act by the NCSG. * Page 83 In the discussion of the Cybercafe constituency applications Westlake avoids several salient facts: * The NCSG charter, as approved by the ICANN Board, as well as the defined process for creating new constituencies requires the constituencies not only be appropriate to the SG group to which they are applying, i.e be non commercial in the NCSG or be commercial in the CSG, but that there should not be an overlap with existing constituencies. * The statement related to the fact that if the applicants of the Cybecafe had paid attention to the requirements for the NCSG, they would have realized that as commercial entities they were not qualified for the Non Commercial SG. This was backed up by the Board. Again this makes the NCSG look like it did some inappropriate when it was following procedures and its own Board approved charter. Does Westlake recommend that: * It is ok to put commercial constituencies in the NCSG and non commercial constituencies in the CSG? * It is ok to create constituencies with overlapping mandates on the same SG? Does Westlake have a recommendation for how to handle groups that file an intent to form a constituency without being fit for any of the four existing SGs? * Page 85 What evidence is there to substantiate: - Less ?pure? or altruistic motives, such as protecting one?s own position, status in the GNSO/ICANN community (or with an employer), or, ? In other instances, individual concerns that if someone new comes in, the replaced incumbent will lose their own travel funding, regardless of the GNSO?s greater interest of having the most appropriate people for the role ? rather than just those who can defend their positions the most effectively. What Westlake interprets as ?protecting a patch? may just be a strong feeling in support of adhering to the processes as negotiated and agreed to by constituencies, stakeholder groups and the Board. To indicate otherwise based on hearsay and without adequate substantive proof is somewhat disparaging of hard working sincere individuals. While this may indeed occur, I am also not well placed to judge the intentions of others, it seems inappropriate to include such claims in a review. Isn?t it enough to say that not enough has been done to create new constituencies without casting aspersions on a population of hard working volunteers? Such evaluations, albeit very general and not about any individual or SG, seems like they should be avoided in a review. * Page 91 NPOC is used both as an example of the only new constituency chartered and as a bludgeon against the NCSG. Yes, there have been, and occasionally still are rough times between the sister non commercial constituencies. But we work together and produce substantive NCSG statements that include the support of both constituencies, our candidate constituency and individuals. Not only did we successfully negotiate the creation of this new constituency according to rules that were being developed as part of the process itself, the NCSG charter was written with a full set of appeals for any occasion in which a constituency, or any group of participants, felt that the NCSG Committee decisions treated them unfairly or improperly. Initiating these NCSG appeals takes a very low threshold (15 members out of hundreds), yet not a single appeal has been initiated since the charter was approved in 2011. A claim is also made about the lack of new leadership in the NCUC and the NCSG. If one were to look at the leadership of the NCSG, or NCUC for that matter, more than half got involved with ICANN in the last few years. Many are newcomers in their first 2-3 years of participation in the NCSG. Yes some of us old timers still hold posts, but we are by no means the majority. Many of our senior members work in the background on WGs and CWGs and penning draft statements without holding a leadership post. Many of the senior people long for a new younger generation to take of the SG and actively recruit replacements for the roles they hold. Would have been good to see that accounted for in the analysis. * Page 113 I believe in the discussion of the GNSO as an artificial construct Westlake makes a category error. But first, in a sense all of the SOAC are essentially artificial constructs that have evolved over the course of years to reflect the reality of participation. The category error has to do with comparing the GNSO to the ALAC. That is wrong. The GNSO is to the GNSO Council as the At-Large is to the ALAC. One cannot compare the GNSO with the ALAC, though they could compare the GNSO Council to the ALAC. As someone who participates in both the At-large ,and the GNSO, I believe there is very little difference between the relationship among the RALOs of the At-large and the relationship among SGs of the GNSO. I see them as similar structure, though along different discrimination lines, geography and interest. This is not to say wee don?t need better communication across the silos, but merely to argue that the GNSO is not that different in this respect of other organizations that have a layers internal structure. * Page 116 I find the appropriation of Sir Winston?s adage a bit overstated in relation to the GNSO. He was talking about Democracy. While the quote can be appropriately applied to something as fundamental as the multistakeholder model of participatory democracy, I find its application to the GNSO a bit puzzling. Even if the quote did not trivialize the original utterance, I see little basis for a judgement that many other schemes have been tried and been shown to be wanting. Despite my comments, I want to reiterate that I take little issue with the specific recommendations. I thank the Westlake Review team for having produced a mostly balanced 2nd revision of their report and for giving us yet another chance to review their work before it is submitted. Avri Doria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Westlake2response.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 127707 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From philip at brandregistrygroup.org Mon May 4 08:56:35 2015 From: philip at brandregistrygroup.org (BRG) Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 10:56:35 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review In-Reply-To: <55464713.7050100@acm.org> References: <55464713.7050100@acm.org> Message-ID: <266697C448FB40BE902B4874FCA27472@ZaparazziL11> I would like to thank Westlake for the latest report and make the following 5 comments and recommendations. 1. Page 14 preamble on structure "Many people commented on the GNSO?s structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change. We do not consider that the GNSO?s structure is perfect, or that it cannot be improved, but, having analysed the issues in some detail, our view is that the structure of the GNSO is not the main cause of its most pressing challenges. In addition, the current structure of the GNSO has been in place for only about three years." This comment is misleading. The 2 House structure was implemented in 2008. That is 7 years ago. Do Westlake mean the current form of the PDP and Working Groups? This is different. Please change the text to clarify. 2. The "pressing challenges" and recommendations 36 - 41. These all focus on diversity. They are fine recommendations but NOT ones that addresses the issue of structure. Please change the text to clarify. 3.ICANN Board In its resolution of 28 September 2013 the ICANN Board stated: "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. ? Why is this Board resolution not addressed in the report? 4. Page 14: "Many people commented on the GNSO?s structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change" Why is the opinion of "many people" not addressed in the report? 5. Understanding the past and the present. Little attempt to analyse the lack of relevance* today of the 2 Houses structure has been made. Why is this? *See below for a snip from the BRG survey submission Philip Sheppard --------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT FROM BRG PAPER AND SURVEY SUBMISSION The 2008 GNSO reform created two Houses within the GNSO: the Contracted Party House and the Non-Contracted Party House. Put simply there is a suppliers House and a users House. And those Houses were given equal votes. This was a change from the GNSO of several separate Constituencies. This created a 4-tier structure. The rationale for the 2008 reform was threefold. a) Separable interests. There was a belief that the underlying user groups and supplier groups had separable interests that could be divided into six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). b) Commonality. The rationale for the two Houses was that suppliers are impacted economically by policy and may be impacted in the same way: and users are impacted in a variety of ways by policy and may be impacted in the same way. c) Balance between the Houses. There was a belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced. Issues In 2014, everything has changed. The rationale has changed. Indeed, the current structure creates new conflicts of interest. a) Separable interests. While different interests continue, it is no longer true that the separable interests are accurately reflected by the six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). There are two reasons for this. ? Conflicting relationships. There is a complex web of relationships that overlap and conflict within the six groups. A typical .brand registry may be simultaneously: a Registry, a Business Constituency member, an Intellectual Property Constituency member, and have a contractual relationship with other generic registries for back-end services. ? What is commercial? The old division within the users House between commercial and non-commercial is no longer relevant. Just within the 400 .brand registry applicants, some 15 are not-for-profit organisations representing some $69 billion in annual turnover. Two of these are current BRG members. b) Commonality. The commonality assumption was historically questionable. The commonality of interests within the old groups has changed. ? It was never true that users within each House acted as if they were impacted in the same way by policy. There has often been disagreement between commercial and non-commercial users, and between types of non-commercial user. This has been seen most clearly on issues connected with crime prevention (such as accurate Whois records and a difference of opinion on the balance of freedom of speech versus crime prevention). ? It is no longer true that Registries are impacted economically by policy in the same way. The 400 .brand Registries will have a different view on many policy issues to the 800 generic Registries. This divide will be most clear where there is a choice between the costs imposed by a policy and the benefits of that policy such as crime prevention. In such a choice, generic registries and brand registries will typically have different opinions on cost versus benefit. c) Balance between the Houses. There is no objective reason for the current balance of votes. ? The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was predicated not on an external objective reason but on an internal compromise. In the 1999 Names Council a number of groups self-formed. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO. These groups in 2008 were charged to agree GNSO reform but they disagreed. The Houses concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the link between seats and votes. It was adopted out of expediency. d) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency ? The Houses structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. ? Post 2008, for some groups Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier structure. This has created unnecessary complexity and duplicated meeting agendas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Mon May 4 14:26:00 2015 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 14:26:00 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review In-Reply-To: <266697C448FB40BE902B4874FCA27472@ZaparazziL11> References: <55464713.7050100@acm.org> <266697C448FB40BE902B4874FCA27472@ZaparazziL11> Message-ID: Hello everyone! I hope you all had a great weekend! Thank you to the Westlake team and staff for all of the hard work in assembling this information, particularly the detailed listing of all comments made throughout the process and responses by Westlake. And, thank you to Chuck and Philip for forwarding these comments in advance of the meeting - very helpful in preparing for the call! I look forward to talking with you all at the top of the hour. We have a two-hour time slot scheduled today and a follow up meeting next week with an additional two hours to receive comments from Westlake and provide additional comments about the report before it is officially released to the public. We plan to provide Westlake an initial opportunity to provide an overview of the report today and then will go through the report section by section to provide everyone opportunities to comment. We will continue to capture those comments, as in prior discussions, and Westlake will continue to document its response to those comments. I look forward to the discussion and appreciate all of your hard work and time! With kindest regards, Jen jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm 513.746.2800 x 1 or Cell 513.238.4348 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014 From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of BRG Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 4:57 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review I would like to thank Westlake for the latest report and make the following 5 comments and recommendations. 1. Page 14 preamble on structure "Many people commented on the GNSO's structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change. We do not consider that the GNSO's structure is perfect, or that it cannot be improved, but, having analysed the issues in some detail, our view is that the structure of the GNSO is not the main cause of its most pressing challenges. In addition, the current structure of the GNSO has been in place for only about three years." This comment is misleading. The 2 House structure was implemented in 2008. That is 7 years ago. Do Westlake mean the current form of the PDP and Working Groups? This is different. Please change the text to clarify. 2. The "pressing challenges" and recommendations 36 - 41. These all focus on diversity. They are fine recommendations but NOT ones that addresses the issue of structure. Please change the text to clarify. 3.ICANN Board In its resolution of 28 September 2013 the ICANN Board stated: "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. " Why is this Board resolution not addressed in the report? 4. Page 14: "Many people commented on the GNSO's structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change" Why is the opinion of "many people" not addressed in the report? 5. Understanding the past and the present. Little attempt to analyse the lack of relevance* today of the 2 Houses structure has been made. Why is this? *See below for a snip from the BRG survey submission Philip Sheppard --------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT FROM BRG PAPER AND SURVEY SUBMISSION The 2008 GNSO reform created two Houses within the GNSO: the Contracted Party House and the Non-Contracted Party House. Put simply there is a suppliers House and a users House. And those Houses were given equal votes. This was a change from the GNSO of several separate Constituencies. This created a 4-tier structure. The rationale for the 2008 reform was threefold. a) Separable interests. There was a belief that the underlying user groups and supplier groups had separable interests that could be divided into six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). b) Commonality. The rationale for the two Houses was that suppliers are impacted economically by policy and may be impacted in the same way: and users are impacted in a variety of ways by policy and may be impacted in the same way. c) Balance between the Houses. There was a belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced. Issues In 2014, everything has changed. The rationale has changed. Indeed, the current structure creates new conflicts of interest. a) Separable interests. While different interests continue, it is no longer true that the separable interests are accurately reflected by the six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). There are two reasons for this. * Conflicting relationships. There is a complex web of relationships that overlap and conflict within the six groups. A typical .brand registry may be simultaneously: a Registry, a Business Constituency member, an Intellectual Property Constituency member, and have a contractual relationship with other generic registries for back-end services. * What is commercial? The old division within the users House between commercial and non-commercial is no longer relevant. Just within the 400 .brand registry applicants, some 15 are not-for-profit organisations representing some $69 billion in annual turnover. Two of these are current BRG members. b) Commonality. The commonality assumption was historically questionable. The commonality of interests within the old groups has changed. * It was never true that users within each House acted as if they were impacted in the same way by policy. There has often been disagreement between commercial and non-commercial users, and between types of non-commercial user. This has been seen most clearly on issues connected with crime prevention (such as accurate Whois records and a difference of opinion on the balance of freedom of speech versus crime prevention). * It is no longer true that Registries are impacted economically by policy in the same way. The 400 .brand Registries will have a different view on many policy issues to the 800 generic Registries. This divide will be most clear where there is a choice between the costs imposed by a policy and the benefits of that policy such as crime prevention. In such a choice, generic registries and brand registries will typically have different opinions on cost versus benefit. c) Balance between the Houses. There is no objective reason for the current balance of votes. * The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was predicated not on an external objective reason but on an internal compromise. In the 1999 Names Council a number of groups self-formed. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO. These groups in 2008 were charged to agree GNSO reform but they disagreed. The Houses concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the link between seats and votes. It was adopted out of expediency. d) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency * The Houses structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. * Post 2008, for some groups Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier structure. This has created unnecessary complexity and duplicated meeting agendas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Mon May 4 14:39:12 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 10:39:12 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review In-Reply-To: References: <55464713.7050100@acm.org> <266697C448FB40BE902B4874FCA27472@ZaparazziL11> Message-ID: <55478490.4090204@acm.org> Hi, Did my comments not reach the list? avri On 04-May-15 10:26, Jen Wolfe wrote: > > Hello everyone! I hope you all had a great weekend! > > > > Thank you to the Westlake team and staff for all of the hard work in > assembling this information, particularly the detailed listing of all > comments made throughout the process and responses by Westlake. And, > thank you to Chuck and Philip for forwarding these comments in > advance of the meeting ? very helpful in preparing for the call! > > > > I look forward to talking with you all at the top of the hour. We > have a two-hour time slot scheduled today and a follow up meeting next > week with an additional two hours to receive comments from Westlake > and provide additional comments about the report before it is > officially released to the public. > > > > We plan to provide Westlake an initial opportunity to provide an > overview of the report today and then will go through the report > section by section to provide everyone opportunities to comment. We > will continue to capture those comments, as in prior discussions, and > Westlake will continue to document its response to those comments. > > > > I look forward to the discussion and appreciate all of your hard work > and time! > > > > With kindest regards, > > > > Jen > > > > *jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB* > > Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm > > */513.746.2800 x 1 or Cell 513.238.4348/* > > */IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014/* > > > > *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *BRG > *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 4:57 AM > *To:* gnso-review-dt at icann.org > *Subject:* [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake > review > > > > I would like to thank Westlake for the latest report and make the > following 5 comments and recommendations. > > *1. Page 14 preamble on structure** > *"Many people commented on the GNSO?s structure and complexity and > argued that these needed to change. We do not consider that the GNSO?s > structure is perfect, or that it cannot be improved, but, having > analysed the issues in some detail, our view is that the structure of > the GNSO is not the main cause of its most pressing challenges. > In addition, the current structure of the GNSO has been in place for > only about three years." > This comment is misleading. > The 2 House structure was implemented in 2008. That is 7 years ago. > Do Westlake mean the current form of the PDP and Working Groups? > This is different. > *Please change the text to clarify.** > * > *2. The "pressing challenges" and recommendations 36 - 41.** > *These all focus on diversity. > They are fine recommendations but NOT ones that addresses the issue > of structure. *Please change the text to clarify.* > > *3.ICANN Board** > *In its resolution of 28 September 2013 the ICANN Board stated: > "*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. ? > *Why is this Board resolution not addressed in the report?** > * > 4. Page 14: "Many people commented on the GNSO?s structure and > complexity and argued that these needed to change" > *Why is the opinion of "many people" not addressed in the report?** > * > 5. Understanding the past and the present. > Little attempt to analyse the lack of relevance* today of the 2 Houses > structure has been made. > *Why is this?** > **See below for a snip from the BRG survey submission > > > Philip Sheppard > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > *EDIT FROM BRG PAPER AND SURVEY SUBMISSION* > > The 2008 GNSO reform created two Houses within the GNSO: the > Contracted Party House and the Non-Contracted Party House. Put simply > there is a suppliers House and a users House. And those Houses were > given equal votes. This was a change from the GNSO of several separate > Constituencies. This created a 4-tier structure. > > > > The rationale for the 2008 reform was threefold. > > a) Separable interests. > > There was a belief that the underlying user groups and supplier groups > had separable interests that could be divided into six separable > entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual > property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). > > > > b) Commonality. > > The rationale for the two Houses was that suppliers are impacted > economically by policy and may be impacted in the same way: and users > are impacted in a variety of ways by policy and may be impacted in the > same way. > > > > c) Balance between the Houses. > > There was a belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be > balanced. > > > > _Issues_ > > In 2014, everything has changed. The rationale has changed. Indeed, > the current structure creates new conflicts of interest. > > > > a) Separable interests. > > While different interests continue, it is no longer true that the > separable interests are accurately reflected by the six separable > entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual > property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial > interests). There are two reasons for this. > > ? Conflicting relationships. There is a complex web of > relationships that overlap and conflict within the six groups. A > typical .brand registry may be simultaneously: a Registry, a Business > Constituency member, an Intellectual Property Constituency member, and > have a contractual relationship with other generic registries for > back-end services. > > ? What is commercial? The old division within the users House > between commercial and non-commercial is no longer relevant. Just > within the 400 .brand registry applicants, some 15 are not-for-profit > organisations representing some $69 billion in annual turnover. Two of > these are current BRG members. > > > > b) Commonality. > > The commonality assumption was historically questionable. > > The commonality of interests within the old groups has changed. > > ? It was _never_ true that users within each House acted as if > they were impacted in the same way by policy. There has often been > disagreement between commercial and non-commercial users, and between > types of non-commercial user. This has been seen most clearly on > issues connected with crime prevention (such as accurate Whois records > and a difference of opinion on the balance of freedom of speech versus > crime prevention). > > ? It is _no longer_ true that Registries are impacted > economically by policy in the same way. The 400 .brand Registries will > have a different view on many policy issues to the 800 generic > Registries. This divide will be most clear where there is a choice > between the costs imposed by a policy and the benefits of that policy > such as crime prevention. In such a choice, generic registries and > brand registries will typically have different opinions on cost versus > benefit. > > > > c) Balance between the Houses. > > There is no objective reason for the current balance of votes. > > ? The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should > be balanced was predicated not on an external objective reason but on > an internal compromise. In the 1999 Names Council a number of groups > self-formed. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO. These > groups in 2008 were charged to agree GNSO reform but they disagreed. > The Houses concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this > disagreement by severing the link between seats and votes. It was > adopted out of expediency. > > > > d) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group > /Constituency > > ? The Houses structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. > > ? Post 2008, for some groups Council changed from a 2-tier to > a 4-tier structure. This has created unnecessary complexity and > duplicated meeting agendas. > > > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Mon May 4 14:43:39 2015 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 14:43:39 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review In-Reply-To: <55478490.4090204@acm.org> References: <55464713.7050100@acm.org> <266697C448FB40BE902B4874FCA27472@ZaparazziL11> <55478490.4090204@acm.org> Message-ID: <13ff0b37efcc4bc5aef75f5ead3401cb@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Avri, I can confirm that I received your comments and they are being uploaded into the Adobe Room, along with other documents, for the upcoming discussion. Thank you very much, Larisa From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 7:39 AM To: Jen Wolfe; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review Hi, Did my comments not reach the list? avri On 04-May-15 10:26, Jen Wolfe wrote: Hello everyone! I hope you all had a great weekend! Thank you to the Westlake team and staff for all of the hard work in assembling this information, particularly the detailed listing of all comments made throughout the process and responses by Westlake. And, thank you to Chuck and Philip for forwarding these comments in advance of the meeting - very helpful in preparing for the call! I look forward to talking with you all at the top of the hour. We have a two-hour time slot scheduled today and a follow up meeting next week with an additional two hours to receive comments from Westlake and provide additional comments about the report before it is officially released to the public. We plan to provide Westlake an initial opportunity to provide an overview of the report today and then will go through the report section by section to provide everyone opportunities to comment. We will continue to capture those comments, as in prior discussions, and Westlake will continue to document its response to those comments. I look forward to the discussion and appreciate all of your hard work and time! With kindest regards, Jen jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm 513.746.2800 x 1 or Cell 513.238.4348 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014 From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of BRG Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 4:57 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review I would like to thank Westlake for the latest report and make the following 5 comments and recommendations. 1. Page 14 preamble on structure "Many people commented on the GNSO's structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change. We do not consider that the GNSO's structure is perfect, or that it cannot be improved, but, having analysed the issues in some detail, our view is that the structure of the GNSO is not the main cause of its most pressing challenges. In addition, the current structure of the GNSO has been in place for only about three years." This comment is misleading. The 2 House structure was implemented in 2008. That is 7 years ago. Do Westlake mean the current form of the PDP and Working Groups? This is different. Please change the text to clarify. 2. The "pressing challenges" and recommendations 36 - 41. These all focus on diversity. They are fine recommendations but NOT ones that addresses the issue of structure. Please change the text to clarify. 3.ICANN Board In its resolution of 28 September 2013 the ICANN Board stated: "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. " Why is this Board resolution not addressed in the report? 4. Page 14: "Many people commented on the GNSO's structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change" Why is the opinion of "many people" not addressed in the report? 5. Understanding the past and the present. Little attempt to analyse the lack of relevance* today of the 2 Houses structure has been made. Why is this? *See below for a snip from the BRG survey submission Philip Sheppard --------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT FROM BRG PAPER AND SURVEY SUBMISSION The 2008 GNSO reform created two Houses within the GNSO: the Contracted Party House and the Non-Contracted Party House. Put simply there is a suppliers House and a users House. And those Houses were given equal votes. This was a change from the GNSO of several separate Constituencies. This created a 4-tier structure. The rationale for the 2008 reform was threefold. a) Separable interests. There was a belief that the underlying user groups and supplier groups had separable interests that could be divided into six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). b) Commonality. The rationale for the two Houses was that suppliers are impacted economically by policy and may be impacted in the same way: and users are impacted in a variety of ways by policy and may be impacted in the same way. c) Balance between the Houses. There was a belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced. Issues In 2014, everything has changed. The rationale has changed. Indeed, the current structure creates new conflicts of interest. a) Separable interests. While different interests continue, it is no longer true that the separable interests are accurately reflected by the six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). There are two reasons for this. * Conflicting relationships. There is a complex web of relationships that overlap and conflict within the six groups. A typical .brand registry may be simultaneously: a Registry, a Business Constituency member, an Intellectual Property Constituency member, and have a contractual relationship with other generic registries for back-end services. * What is commercial? The old division within the users House between commercial and non-commercial is no longer relevant. Just within the 400 .brand registry applicants, some 15 are not-for-profit organisations representing some $69 billion in annual turnover. Two of these are current BRG members. b) Commonality. The commonality assumption was historically questionable. The commonality of interests within the old groups has changed. * It was never true that users within each House acted as if they were impacted in the same way by policy. There has often been disagreement between commercial and non-commercial users, and between types of non-commercial user. This has been seen most clearly on issues connected with crime prevention (such as accurate Whois records and a difference of opinion on the balance of freedom of speech versus crime prevention). * It is no longer true that Registries are impacted economically by policy in the same way. The 400 .brand Registries will have a different view on many policy issues to the 800 generic Registries. This divide will be most clear where there is a choice between the costs imposed by a policy and the benefits of that policy such as crime prevention. In such a choice, generic registries and brand registries will typically have different opinions on cost versus benefit. c) Balance between the Houses. There is no objective reason for the current balance of votes. * The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was predicated not on an external objective reason but on an internal compromise. In the 1999 Names Council a number of groups self-formed. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO. These groups in 2008 were charged to agree GNSO reform but they disagreed. The Houses concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the link between seats and votes. It was adopted out of expediency. d) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency * The Houses structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. * Post 2008, for some groups Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier structure. This has created unnecessary complexity and duplicated meeting agendas. ________________________________ [Avast logo] This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Mon May 4 14:53:51 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 14:53:51 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review In-Reply-To: <55478490.4090204@acm.org> References: <55464713.7050100@acm.org> <266697C448FB40BE902B4874FCA27472@ZaparazziL11> <55478490.4090204@acm.org> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B37A6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> I received them but haven't had a chance to review them yet. I wondered myself why your comments weren't mentioned. I saw yours before Philip's. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 10:39 AM To: Jen Wolfe; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review Hi, Did my comments not reach the list? avri On 04-May-15 10:26, Jen Wolfe wrote: Hello everyone! I hope you all had a great weekend! Thank you to the Westlake team and staff for all of the hard work in assembling this information, particularly the detailed listing of all comments made throughout the process and responses by Westlake. And, thank you to Chuck and Philip for forwarding these comments in advance of the meeting - very helpful in preparing for the call! I look forward to talking with you all at the top of the hour. We have a two-hour time slot scheduled today and a follow up meeting next week with an additional two hours to receive comments from Westlake and provide additional comments about the report before it is officially released to the public. We plan to provide Westlake an initial opportunity to provide an overview of the report today and then will go through the report section by section to provide everyone opportunities to comment. We will continue to capture those comments, as in prior discussions, and Westlake will continue to document its response to those comments. I look forward to the discussion and appreciate all of your hard work and time! With kindest regards, Jen jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm 513.746.2800 x 1 or Cell 513.238.4348 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014 From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of BRG Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 4:57 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review I would like to thank Westlake for the latest report and make the following 5 comments and recommendations. 1. Page 14 preamble on structure "Many people commented on the GNSO's structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change. We do not consider that the GNSO's structure is perfect, or that it cannot be improved, but, having analysed the issues in some detail, our view is that the structure of the GNSO is not the main cause of its most pressing challenges. In addition, the current structure of the GNSO has been in place for only about three years." This comment is misleading. The 2 House structure was implemented in 2008. That is 7 years ago. Do Westlake mean the current form of the PDP and Working Groups? This is different. Please change the text to clarify. 2. The "pressing challenges" and recommendations 36 - 41. These all focus on diversity. They are fine recommendations but NOT ones that addresses the issue of structure. Please change the text to clarify. 3.ICANN Board In its resolution of 28 September 2013 the ICANN Board stated: "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. " Why is this Board resolution not addressed in the report? 4. Page 14: "Many people commented on the GNSO's structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change" Why is the opinion of "many people" not addressed in the report? 5. Understanding the past and the present. Little attempt to analyse the lack of relevance* today of the 2 Houses structure has been made. Why is this? *See below for a snip from the BRG survey submission Philip Sheppard --------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT FROM BRG PAPER AND SURVEY SUBMISSION The 2008 GNSO reform created two Houses within the GNSO: the Contracted Party House and the Non-Contracted Party House. Put simply there is a suppliers House and a users House. And those Houses were given equal votes. This was a change from the GNSO of several separate Constituencies. This created a 4-tier structure. The rationale for the 2008 reform was threefold. a) Separable interests. There was a belief that the underlying user groups and supplier groups had separable interests that could be divided into six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). b) Commonality. The rationale for the two Houses was that suppliers are impacted economically by policy and may be impacted in the same way: and users are impacted in a variety of ways by policy and may be impacted in the same way. c) Balance between the Houses. There was a belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced. Issues In 2014, everything has changed. The rationale has changed. Indeed, the current structure creates new conflicts of interest. a) Separable interests. While different interests continue, it is no longer true that the separable interests are accurately reflected by the six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). There are two reasons for this. * Conflicting relationships. There is a complex web of relationships that overlap and conflict within the six groups. A typical .brand registry may be simultaneously: a Registry, a Business Constituency member, an Intellectual Property Constituency member, and have a contractual relationship with other generic registries for back-end services. * What is commercial? The old division within the users House between commercial and non-commercial is no longer relevant. Just within the 400 .brand registry applicants, some 15 are not-for-profit organisations representing some $69 billion in annual turnover. Two of these are current BRG members. b) Commonality. The commonality assumption was historically questionable. The commonality of interests within the old groups has changed. * It was never true that users within each House acted as if they were impacted in the same way by policy. There has often been disagreement between commercial and non-commercial users, and between types of non-commercial user. This has been seen most clearly on issues connected with crime prevention (such as accurate Whois records and a difference of opinion on the balance of freedom of speech versus crime prevention). * It is no longer true that Registries are impacted economically by policy in the same way. The 400 .brand Registries will have a different view on many policy issues to the 800 generic Registries. This divide will be most clear where there is a choice between the costs imposed by a policy and the benefits of that policy such as crime prevention. In such a choice, generic registries and brand registries will typically have different opinions on cost versus benefit. c) Balance between the Houses. There is no objective reason for the current balance of votes. * The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was predicated not on an external objective reason but on an internal compromise. In the 1999 Names Council a number of groups self-formed. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO. These groups in 2008 were charged to agree GNSO reform but they disagreed. The Houses concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the link between seats and votes. It was adopted out of expediency. d) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency * The Houses structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. * Post 2008, for some groups Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier structure. This has created unnecessary complexity and duplicated meeting agendas. ________________________________ [Avast logo] This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Mon May 4 14:54:29 2015 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 14:54:29 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review In-Reply-To: <55478490.4090204@acm.org> References: <55464713.7050100@acm.org> <266697C448FB40BE902B4874FCA27472@ZaparazziL11> <55478490.4090204@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri, My sincerest apologies, I just rechecked my email and they did come in over the weekend. I apologize I missed that notation in my prior email. Thank you, too, for taking time to provide detailed comments on the report prior to the call. I look forward to talking with you shortly! Jen jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm 513.746.2800 x 1 or Cell 513.238.4348 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014 From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 10:39 AM To: Jen Wolfe; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review Hi, Did my comments not reach the list? avri On 04-May-15 10:26, Jen Wolfe wrote: Hello everyone! I hope you all had a great weekend! Thank you to the Westlake team and staff for all of the hard work in assembling this information, particularly the detailed listing of all comments made throughout the process and responses by Westlake. And, thank you to Chuck and Philip for forwarding these comments in advance of the meeting - very helpful in preparing for the call! I look forward to talking with you all at the top of the hour. We have a two-hour time slot scheduled today and a follow up meeting next week with an additional two hours to receive comments from Westlake and provide additional comments about the report before it is officially released to the public. We plan to provide Westlake an initial opportunity to provide an overview of the report today and then will go through the report section by section to provide everyone opportunities to comment. We will continue to capture those comments, as in prior discussions, and Westlake will continue to document its response to those comments. I look forward to the discussion and appreciate all of your hard work and time! With kindest regards, Jen jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm 513.746.2800 x 1 or Cell 513.238.4348 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014 From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of BRG Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 4:57 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review I would like to thank Westlake for the latest report and make the following 5 comments and recommendations. 1. Page 14 preamble on structure "Many people commented on the GNSO's structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change. We do not consider that the GNSO's structure is perfect, or that it cannot be improved, but, having analysed the issues in some detail, our view is that the structure of the GNSO is not the main cause of its most pressing challenges. In addition, the current structure of the GNSO has been in place for only about three years." This comment is misleading. The 2 House structure was implemented in 2008. That is 7 years ago. Do Westlake mean the current form of the PDP and Working Groups? This is different. Please change the text to clarify. 2. The "pressing challenges" and recommendations 36 - 41. These all focus on diversity. They are fine recommendations but NOT ones that addresses the issue of structure. Please change the text to clarify. 3.ICANN Board In its resolution of 28 September 2013 the ICANN Board stated: "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. " Why is this Board resolution not addressed in the report? 4. Page 14: "Many people commented on the GNSO's structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change" Why is the opinion of "many people" not addressed in the report? 5. Understanding the past and the present. Little attempt to analyse the lack of relevance* today of the 2 Houses structure has been made. Why is this? *See below for a snip from the BRG survey submission Philip Sheppard --------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT FROM BRG PAPER AND SURVEY SUBMISSION The 2008 GNSO reform created two Houses within the GNSO: the Contracted Party House and the Non-Contracted Party House. Put simply there is a suppliers House and a users House. And those Houses were given equal votes. This was a change from the GNSO of several separate Constituencies. This created a 4-tier structure. The rationale for the 2008 reform was threefold. a) Separable interests. There was a belief that the underlying user groups and supplier groups had separable interests that could be divided into six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). b) Commonality. The rationale for the two Houses was that suppliers are impacted economically by policy and may be impacted in the same way: and users are impacted in a variety of ways by policy and may be impacted in the same way. c) Balance between the Houses. There was a belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced. Issues In 2014, everything has changed. The rationale has changed. Indeed, the current structure creates new conflicts of interest. a) Separable interests. While different interests continue, it is no longer true that the separable interests are accurately reflected by the six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). There are two reasons for this. * Conflicting relationships. There is a complex web of relationships that overlap and conflict within the six groups. A typical .brand registry may be simultaneously: a Registry, a Business Constituency member, an Intellectual Property Constituency member, and have a contractual relationship with other generic registries for back-end services. * What is commercial? The old division within the users House between commercial and non-commercial is no longer relevant. Just within the 400 .brand registry applicants, some 15 are not-for-profit organisations representing some $69 billion in annual turnover. Two of these are current BRG members. b) Commonality. The commonality assumption was historically questionable. The commonality of interests within the old groups has changed. * It was never true that users within each House acted as if they were impacted in the same way by policy. There has often been disagreement between commercial and non-commercial users, and between types of non-commercial user. This has been seen most clearly on issues connected with crime prevention (such as accurate Whois records and a difference of opinion on the balance of freedom of speech versus crime prevention). * It is no longer true that Registries are impacted economically by policy in the same way. The 400 .brand Registries will have a different view on many policy issues to the 800 generic Registries. This divide will be most clear where there is a choice between the costs imposed by a policy and the benefits of that policy such as crime prevention. In such a choice, generic registries and brand registries will typically have different opinions on cost versus benefit. c) Balance between the Houses. There is no objective reason for the current balance of votes. * The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was predicated not on an external objective reason but on an internal compromise. In the 1999 Names Council a number of groups self-formed. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO. These groups in 2008 were charged to agree GNSO reform but they disagreed. The Houses concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the link between seats and votes. It was adopted out of expediency. d) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency * The Houses structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. * Post 2008, for some groups Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier structure. This has created unnecessary complexity and duplicated meeting agendas. ________________________________ [Avast logo] This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Mon May 4 14:58:21 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 10:58:21 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B37A6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <55464713.7050100@acm.org> <266697C448FB40BE902B4874FCA27472@ZaparazziL11> <55478490.4090204@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B37A6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <5547890D.9050906@acm.org> Hi, No problem with them not being mentioned, as long as they made it to the list. i confess I have not read yours yet eiither. Though Philip's were short enough to have read. And agreed with, BTW. thanks avri On 04-May-15 10:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > I received them but haven?t had a chance to review them yet. I > wondered myself why your comments weren?t mentioned. I saw yours > before Philip?s. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria > *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 10:39 AM > *To:* Jen Wolfe; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the > Westlake review > > > > Hi, > > Did my comments not reach the list? > > avri > > On 04-May-15 10:26, Jen Wolfe wrote: > > Hello everyone! I hope you all had a great weekend! > > > > Thank you to the Westlake team and staff for all of the hard work > in assembling this information, particularly the detailed listing > of all comments made throughout the process and responses by > Westlake. And, thank you to Chuck and Philip for forwarding > these comments in advance of the meeting ? very helpful in > preparing for the call! > > > > I look forward to talking with you all at the top of the hour. We > have a two-hour time slot scheduled today and a follow up meeting > next week with an additional two hours to receive comments from > Westlake and provide additional comments about the report before > it is officially released to the public. > > > > We plan to provide Westlake an initial opportunity to provide an > overview of the report today and then will go through the report > section by section to provide everyone opportunities to comment. > We will continue to capture those comments, as in prior > discussions, and Westlake will continue to document its response > to those comments. > > > > I look forward to the discussion and appreciate all of your hard > work and time! > > > > With kindest regards, > > > > Jen > > > > *jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB* > > Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy > advisory firm > > */513.746.2800 x 1 or Cell 513.238.4348/* > > */IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014/* > > > > *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *BRG > *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 4:57 AM > *To:* gnso-review-dt at icann.org > *Subject:* [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the > Westlake review > > > > I would like to thank Westlake for the latest report and make the > following 5 comments and recommendations. > > *1. Page 14 preamble on structure** > *"Many people commented on the GNSO?s structure and complexity and > argued that these needed to change. We do not consider that the > GNSO?s structure is perfect, or that it cannot be improved, but, > having analysed the issues in some detail, our view is that the > structure of the GNSO is not the main cause of its most pressing > challenges. > In addition, the current structure of the GNSO has been in place > for only about three years." > This comment is misleading. > The 2 House structure was implemented in 2008. That is 7 years ago. > Do Westlake mean the current form of the PDP and Working Groups? > This is different. > *Please change the text to clarify.** > * > *2. The "pressing challenges" and recommendations 36 - 41.** > *These all focus on diversity. > They are fine recommendations but NOT ones that addresses the > issue of structure. *Please change the text to clarify.* > > *3.ICANN Board** > *In its resolution of 28 September 2013 the ICANN Board stated: > "*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.? > *Why is this Board resolution not addressed in the report?** > * > 4. Page 14: "Many people commented on the GNSO?s structure and > complexity and argued that these needed to change" > *Why is the opinion of "**many people**" not addressed in the > report?** > * > 5. Understanding the past and the present. > Little attempt to analyse the lack of relevance* today of the 2 > Houses structure has been made. > *Why is this?** > **See below for a snip from the BRG survey submission > > > Philip Sheppard > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > *EDIT FROM BRG PAPER AND SURVEY SUBMISSION* > > The 2008 GNSO reform created two Houses within the GNSO: the > Contracted Party House and the Non-Contracted Party House. Put > simply there is a suppliers House and a users House. And those > Houses were given equal votes. This was a change from the GNSO of > several separate Constituencies. This created a 4-tier structure. > > > > The rationale for the 2008 reform was threefold. > > a) Separable interests. > > There was a belief that the underlying user groups and supplier > groups had separable interests that could be divided into six > separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, > intellectual property interests, internet service providers, > non-commercial interests). > > > > b) Commonality. > > The rationale for the two Houses was that suppliers are impacted > economically by policy and may be impacted in the same way: and > users are impacted in a variety of ways by policy and may be > impacted in the same way. > > > > c) Balance between the Houses. > > There was a belief that the interests of users and suppliers > should be balanced. > > > > _Issues_ > > In 2014, everything has changed. The rationale has changed. > Indeed, the current structure creates new conflicts of interest. > > > > a) Separable interests. > > While different interests continue, it is no longer true that the > separable interests are accurately reflected by the six separable > entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual > property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial > interests). There are two reasons for this. > > ? Conflicting relationships. There is a complex web of > relationships that overlap and conflict within the six groups. A > typical .brand registry may be simultaneously: a Registry, a > Business Constituency member, an Intellectual Property > Constituency member, and have a contractual relationship with > other generic registries for back-end services. > > ? What is commercial? The old division within the users > House between commercial and non-commercial is no longer relevant. > Just within the 400 .brand registry applicants, some 15 are > not-for-profit organisations representing some $69 billion in > annual turnover. Two of these are current BRG members. > > > > b) Commonality. > > The commonality assumption was historically questionable. > > The commonality of interests within the old groups has changed. > > ? It was _never_ true that users within each House acted > as if they were impacted in the same way by policy. There has > often been disagreement between commercial and non-commercial > users, and between types of non-commercial user. This has been > seen most clearly on issues connected with crime prevention (such > as accurate Whois records and a difference of opinion on the > balance of freedom of speech versus crime prevention). > > ? It is _no longer_ true that Registries are impacted > economically by policy in the same way. The 400 .brand Registries > will have a different view on many policy issues to the 800 > generic Registries. This divide will be most clear where there is > a choice between the costs imposed by a policy and the benefits of > that policy such as crime prevention. In such a choice, generic > registries and brand registries will typically have different > opinions on cost versus benefit. > > > > c) Balance between the Houses. > > There is no objective reason for the current balance of votes. > > ? The belief that the interests of users and suppliers > should be balanced was predicated not on an external objective > reason but on an internal compromise. In the 1999 Names Council a > number of groups self-formed. These groups became the > Constituencies of the GNSO. These groups in 2008 were charged to > agree GNSO reform but they disagreed. The Houses concept was a > compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the > link between seats and votes. It was adopted out of expediency. > > > > d) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group > /Constituency > > ? The Houses structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. > > ? Post 2008, for some groups Council changed from a 2-tier > to a 4-tier structure. This has created unnecessary complexity and > duplicated meeting agendas. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Avast logo > > > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com > > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Mon May 4 22:04:18 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 22:04:18 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review In-Reply-To: <266697C448FB40BE902B4874FCA27472@ZaparazziL11> References: <55464713.7050100@acm.org> <266697C448FB40BE902B4874FCA27472@ZaparazziL11> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B4449@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Philip, I disagree with your argument and history in your fifth point about the balance between the houses. In the original DNSO, there was no balance. Non-contracted parties outnumbered contracted parties 5 to 2. That resulted in contracted parties having negligible impact even though they were required to implement consensus policies and hence could be heavily impacted by them. It was a terrible model from a business point of view. This was corrected in the first GNSO reform. That is when the balance of voting was instituted. That principle was simply continued in later reforms. The balance of voting existed before the bicameral house model was implemented. Finally, I don't think that the reason for balanced voting has changed at all. If either contracted or non-contracted parties have a voting advantage, then an imbalance will be created that unfairly favors one side and lessons the chances for all parties working toward meaningful consensus. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of BRG Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 4:57 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review I would like to thank Westlake for the latest report and make the following 5 comments and recommendations. 1. Page 14 preamble on structure "Many people commented on the GNSO's structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change. We do not consider that the GNSO's structure is perfect, or that it cannot be improved, but, having analysed the issues in some detail, our view is that the structure of the GNSO is not the main cause of its most pressing challenges. In addition, the current structure of the GNSO has been in place for only about three years." This comment is misleading. The 2 House structure was implemented in 2008. That is 7 years ago. Do Westlake mean the current form of the PDP and Working Groups? This is different. Please change the text to clarify. 2. The "pressing challenges" and recommendations 36 - 41. These all focus on diversity. They are fine recommendations but NOT ones that addresses the issue of structure. Please change the text to clarify. 3.ICANN Board In its resolution of 28 September 2013 the ICANN Board stated: "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. " Why is this Board resolution not addressed in the report? 4. Page 14: "Many people commented on the GNSO's structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change" Why is the opinion of "many people" not addressed in the report? 5. Understanding the past and the present. Little attempt to analyse the lack of relevance* today of the 2 Houses structure has been made. Why is this? *See below for a snip from the BRG survey submission Philip Sheppard --------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT FROM BRG PAPER AND SURVEY SUBMISSION The 2008 GNSO reform created two Houses within the GNSO: the Contracted Party House and the Non-Contracted Party House. Put simply there is a suppliers House and a users House. And those Houses were given equal votes. This was a change from the GNSO of several separate Constituencies. This created a 4-tier structure. The rationale for the 2008 reform was threefold. a) Separable interests. There was a belief that the underlying user groups and supplier groups had separable interests that could be divided into six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). b) Commonality. The rationale for the two Houses was that suppliers are impacted economically by policy and may be impacted in the same way: and users are impacted in a variety of ways by policy and may be impacted in the same way. c) Balance between the Houses. There was a belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced. Issues In 2014, everything has changed. The rationale has changed. Indeed, the current structure creates new conflicts of interest. a) Separable interests. While different interests continue, it is no longer true that the separable interests are accurately reflected by the six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). There are two reasons for this. * Conflicting relationships. There is a complex web of relationships that overlap and conflict within the six groups. A typical .brand registry may be simultaneously: a Registry, a Business Constituency member, an Intellectual Property Constituency member, and have a contractual relationship with other generic registries for back-end services. * What is commercial? The old division within the users House between commercial and non-commercial is no longer relevant. Just within the 400 .brand registry applicants, some 15 are not-for-profit organisations representing some $69 billion in annual turnover. Two of these are current BRG members. b) Commonality. The commonality assumption was historically questionable. The commonality of interests within the old groups has changed. * It was never true that users within each House acted as if they were impacted in the same way by policy. There has often been disagreement between commercial and non-commercial users, and between types of non-commercial user. This has been seen most clearly on issues connected with crime prevention (such as accurate Whois records and a difference of opinion on the balance of freedom of speech versus crime prevention). * It is no longer true that Registries are impacted economically by policy in the same way. The 400 .brand Registries will have a different view on many policy issues to the 800 generic Registries. This divide will be most clear where there is a choice between the costs imposed by a policy and the benefits of that policy such as crime prevention. In such a choice, generic registries and brand registries will typically have different opinions on cost versus benefit. c) Balance between the Houses. There is no objective reason for the current balance of votes. * The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was predicated not on an external objective reason but on an internal compromise. In the 1999 Names Council a number of groups self-formed. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO. These groups in 2008 were charged to agree GNSO reform but they disagreed. The Houses concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the link between seats and votes. It was adopted out of expediency. d) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency * The Houses structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. * Post 2008, for some groups Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier structure. This has created unnecessary complexity and duplicated meeting agendas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Mon May 4 22:28:49 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 22:28:49 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Personal comment on newest revision of the Westlake review In-Reply-To: <55464713.7050100@acm.org> References: <55464713.7050100@acm.org> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B4516@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Avri, I never thought that the constituency procedure was only created for the NCPH. As far as I understand, the procedures could be applied in the CPH as well. It so happened that the RySG developed a process for including new groups without creating some of the complexities associated with constituencies. But I don?t think that means that a group couldn?t apply to be a constituency. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 12:05 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Personal comment on newest revision of the Westlake review These comments are my own personal comments and do not reflect a negotiated set of comments from amongst the NCSG members of the Working party. While I can personally support most of the recommendations made by Westlake in the report, I do have questions and concerns with some of the discussions in document. First I will mention the specific recommendations for which I have questions, later I list comments based on their page number. ? Rec 22 seems too limited. Shouldn?t the GNSO council also concern itself with the subject having been adequately covered. More discussion below. ? Rec 26 seems to include the issue that the rules for new constituencies have not been followed. While Westlake, and many others, do not like the rules as established by the Board?s SIC, I do not believe there is evidence of those rules having be flaunted or otherwise ignored. It should also be noted that the methods for initiating new constituencies was only created for the NCPH and not for the CPH. So perhaps a recommendation needs include some discussion of creating a set of rules applicable to both houses equally. I agree that the default should include creating the new constituencies, though perhaps we need a lighter weight notion of constituency that is topical or based on interest, that is easier to create and sunset. I also believe that constituency creation needs to be done according to a set of rules and that they need to be created in the proper stakeholder groups. I think the evidence of the possible constituencies Westlake discussed is that they did not apply to the correct stakeholder group. One could question whether the current setup of the GNSO allowed any proper place for these constituencies. An issue that could be discussed is whether the division of the GNSO in 4 SG, leaves some organizations homeless as they may either fit into any of the 4 SGs, or may be hybrid organizations that cannot find a home in a strictly segmented set of stakeholder groups. Is there a SG for every possible constituency? ? Page 13 Complexity deters newcomers. Is the report assuming that complexity can be removed, or that it be mitigated by better explanations. ? Page 14 In addition, the current structure of the GNSO has been in place for only about three years. From the Westlake Review Team?s professional experience of structural change in many organisations of differing types, this represents only a relatively short time for it to become firmly established and for people to be fully familiar with it. The review could also have included an analysis of why such an oppositional organization arrangement was a good thing that should be allowed to become firmly established. I question the degree to which the deleterious effects have been adequately studied. In most all of the organization dynamics literature I have ever read, there is a negative effect to creating a set of oppositional structures, as was done in the past GNSO reform. Westlake could have done a great service by including an analysis of this situation and the many ways in which this oppositional setup has affected the GNSO. Yes, we have learned to live with it, but largely we do that by avoiding the contentious issues as much as possible. Even Section 9 of the Westlake report that has an extensive discussion of the structural issue does not recommend further study. Since Westlake does not wish to recommend further work on this subject, I recommend that the GNSO Review Party make its own recommendation vis a vis further work on this topic. Various members of the Board have been quite outspoken on the idea that in the ICANN bottom-up model, if we don?t like the structure, then we should recommend a way to fix it. We do not need a review or a SIC to give us permission to fix what needs to be fixed. We should just do it. Perhaps this is an issue that needs to be taken to GNSO Council. ? Page 40 The ATRT2 figures are from 2013. Has there been any work done to check and see whether there has been any change since then or what the rate of change is? ? Page 43, The description of the Policy & Implementation team work seems incomplete and dated. Might be worth giving a timestamp for when that description was made. ? Page 50 The average length of a PDP is between 2 and 3 years All the other figures in that section appear to be in days. Would be interesting to know what the actual average was in days. 2-3 years is such a wide range. Standard deviation would also be interesting. This comments also relates to the charts on Section 9. At the very least, there should be annotation that this data come from before outreach and does not show any effects that might have been achieved by the outreach program. ? Page 71 Among the things I have assumed the council should ensure, in addition to those listed, is that all of the issues have had a full exploration and that the opinions of all stakeholders as is possible has been taken adequately into account. As this does not figure on the Westlake list, I am wondering whether they consider this an inappropriate activity for the council. Does Westlake consider it appropriate for the GNSO council to send a report back to a WG if they feel the work has not been complete in respect to diversity of view or full discussion of substance? There are issues concerned with the substance of an issue, yet Westlake seems to indicate that the council should have no concern for the substance. ? Page 72 We acknowledge that the Board is the peak governing body of ICANN, so it would be inappropriate to limit its authority The current CWG Accountability has taken issue with a structure where the Board is supreme in all substantive issues. Would Westlake see this as inappropriate? ? Page 81 Following the BGC WG review, but before the new and final Constituency process was implemented (2011), staff developed a two-step process (Notice of Intent to form a New Constituency, New Constituency petition and Charter applications) for new constituency applications The Westlake does not note that this procedure was created only for the NCPH. There is not such procedure for creating constituencies in the CPH. It has never been clear why such a policy should only apply to half of the GNSO. Does Westlake have any input on this situation? Did it figure into the analysis? ? Page 82 and took no action on the Consumer Constituency as it was still being worked on It should be noted that while the candidate constituency still exists in the NCSG, and it still holds observer seats in all NCSG committees as defined in the NCSG Charter, it has not been active in years. Despite this, no attempt has been made to end its candidacy. Several attempts have been made to resurrect it, and some NCSG members still hold out hope for it (I am a NCSG member of the candidate Consumer constituency as well as of NCUC and supported its creation) completing the ICANN policy and NCSG charter?s required activities for full status. Would seem appropriate to discuss the case completely as opposed to allowing it to appear that this was somehow a prejudicial act by the NCSG. ? Page 83 In the discussion of the Cybercafe constituency applications Westlake avoids several salient facts: ? The NCSG charter, as approved by the ICANN Board, as well as the defined process for creating new constituencies requires the constituencies not only be appropriate to the SG group to which they are applying, i.e be non commercial in the NCSG or be commercial in the CSG, but that there should not be an overlap with existing constituencies. ? The statement related to the fact that if the applicants of the Cybecafe had paid attention to the requirements for the NCSG, they would have realized that as commercial entities they were not qualified for the Non Commercial SG. This was backed up by the Board. Again this makes the NCSG look like it did some inappropriate when it was following procedures and its own Board approved charter. Does Westlake recommend that: ? It is ok to put commercial constituencies in the NCSG and non commercial constituencies in the CSG? ? It is ok to create constituencies with overlapping mandates on the same SG? Does Westlake have a recommendation for how to handle groups that file an intent to form a constituency without being fit for any of the four existing SGs? ? Page 85 What evidence is there to substantiate: - Less ?pure? or altruistic motives, such as protecting one?s own position, status in the GNSO/ICANN community (or with an employer), or, ? In other instances, individual concerns that if someone new comes in, the replaced incumbent will lose their own travel funding, regardless of the GNSO?s greater interest of having the most appropriate people for the role ? rather than just those who can defend their positions the most effectively. What Westlake interprets as ?protecting a patch? may just be a strong feeling in support of adhering to the processes as negotiated and agreed to by constituencies, stakeholder groups and the Board. To indicate otherwise based on hearsay and without adequate substantive proof is somewhat disparaging of hard working sincere individuals. While this may indeed occur, I am also not well placed to judge the intentions of others, it seems inappropriate to include such claims in a review. Isn?t it enough to say that not enough has been done to create new constituencies without casting aspersions on a population of hard working volunteers? Such evaluations, albeit very general and not about any individual or SG, seems like they should be avoided in a review. ? Page 91 NPOC is used both as an example of the only new constituency chartered and as a bludgeon against the NCSG. Yes, there have been, and occasionally still are rough times between the sister non commercial constituencies. But we work together and produce substantive NCSG statements that include the support of both constituencies, our candidate constituency and individuals. Not only did we successfully negotiate the creation of this new constituency according to rules that were being developed as part of the process itself, the NCSG charter was written with a full set of appeals for any occasion in which a constituency, or any group of participants, felt that the NCSG Committee decisions treated them unfairly or improperly. Initiating these NCSG appeals takes a very low threshold (15 members out of hundreds), yet not a single appeal has been initiated since the charter was approved in 2011. A claim is also made about the lack of new leadership in the NCUC and the NCSG. If one were to look at the leadership of the NCSG, or NCUC for that matter, more than half got involved with ICANN in the last few years. Many are newcomers in their first 2-3 years of participation in the NCSG. Yes some of us old timers still hold posts, but we are by no means the majority. Many of our senior members work in the background on WGs and CWGs and penning draft statements without holding a leadership post. Many of the senior people long for a new younger generation to take of the SG and actively recruit replacements for the roles they hold. Would have been good to see that accounted for in the analysis. ? Page 113 I believe in the discussion of the GNSO as an artificial construct Westlake makes a category error. But first, in a sense all of the SOAC are essentially artificial constructs that have evolved over the course of years to reflect the reality of participation. The category error has to do with comparing the GNSO to the ALAC. That is wrong. The GNSO is to the GNSO Council as the At-Large is to the ALAC. One cannot compare the GNSO with the ALAC, though they could compare the GNSO Council to the ALAC. As someone who participates in both the At-large ,and the GNSO, I believe there is very little difference between the relationship among the RALOs of the At-large and the relationship among SGs of the GNSO. I see them as similar structure, though along different discrimination lines, geography and interest. This is not to say wee don?t need better communication across the silos, but merely to argue that the GNSO is not that different in this respect of other organizations that have a layers internal structure. ? Page 116 I find the appropriation of Sir Winston?s adage a bit overstated in relation to the GNSO. He was talking about Democracy. While the quote can be appropriately applied to something as fundamental as the multistakeholder model of participatory democracy, I find its application to the GNSO a bit puzzling. Even if the quote did not trivialize the original utterance, I see little basis for a judgement that many other schemes have been tried and been shown to be wanting. Despite my comments, I want to reiterate that I take little issue with the specific recommendations. I thank the Westlake Review team for having produced a mostly balanced 2nd revision of their report and for giving us yet another chance to review their work before it is submitted. Avri Doria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michele at blacknight.com Mon May 4 22:46:05 2015 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 22:46:05 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B4449@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <55464713.7050100@acm.org> <266697C448FB40BE902B4874FCA27472@ZaparazziL11> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B4449@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <93A7CC56-1B2A-474A-97B6-045FD9015A8C@blacknight.com> +1 Chuck I don?t have Chuck?s historical memory, but I strongly agree with the points he raised. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Chuck Gomes Date: Monday 4 May 2015 23:04 To: BRG, "gnso-review-dt at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review Philip, I disagree with your argument and history in your fifth point about the balance between the houses. In the original DNSO, there was no balance. Non-contracted parties outnumbered contracted parties 5 to 2. That resulted in contracted parties having negligible impact even though they were required to implement consensus policies and hence could be heavily impacted by them. It was a terrible model from a business point of view. This was corrected in the first GNSO reform. That is when the balance of voting was instituted. That principle was simply continued in later reforms. The balance of voting existed before the bicameral house model was implemented. Finally, I don?t think that the reason for balanced voting has changed at all. If either contracted or non-contracted parties have a voting advantage, then an imbalance will be created that unfairly favors one side and lessons the chances for all parties working toward meaningful consensus. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of BRG Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 4:57 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review I would like to thank Westlake for the latest report and make the following 5 comments and recommendations. 1. Page 14 preamble on structure "Many people commented on the GNSO?s structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change. We do not consider that the GNSO?s structure is perfect, or that it cannot be improved, but, having analysed the issues in some detail, our view is that the structure of the GNSO is not the main cause of its most pressing challenges. In addition, the current structure of the GNSO has been in place for only about three years." This comment is misleading. The 2 House structure was implemented in 2008. That is 7 years ago. Do Westlake mean the current form of the PDP and Working Groups? This is different. Please change the text to clarify. 2. The "pressing challenges" and recommendations 36 - 41. These all focus on diversity. They are fine recommendations but NOT ones that addresses the issue of structure. Please change the text to clarify. 3.ICANN Board In its resolution of 28 September 2013 the ICANN Board stated: "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. ? Why is this Board resolution not addressed in the report? 4. Page 14: "Many people commented on the GNSO?s structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change" Why is the opinion of "many people" not addressed in the report? 5. Understanding the past and the present. Little attempt to analyse the lack of relevance* today of the 2 Houses structure has been made. Why is this? *See below for a snip from the BRG survey submission Philip Sheppard --------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT FROM BRG PAPER AND SURVEY SUBMISSION The 2008 GNSO reform created two Houses within the GNSO: the Contracted Party House and the Non-Contracted Party House. Put simply there is a suppliers House and a users House. And those Houses were given equal votes. This was a change from the GNSO of several separate Constituencies. This created a 4-tier structure. The rationale for the 2008 reform was threefold. a) Separable interests. There was a belief that the underlying user groups and supplier groups had separable interests that could be divided into six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). b) Commonality. The rationale for the two Houses was that suppliers are impacted economically by policy and may be impacted in the same way: and users are impacted in a variety of ways by policy and may be impacted in the same way. c) Balance between the Houses. There was a belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced. Issues In 2014, everything has changed. The rationale has changed. Indeed, the current structure creates new conflicts of interest. a) Separable interests. While different interests continue, it is no longer true that the separable interests are accurately reflected by the six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). There are two reasons for this. ? Conflicting relationships. There is a complex web of relationships that overlap and conflict within the six groups. A typical .brand registry may be simultaneously: a Registry, a Business Constituency member, an Intellectual Property Constituency member, and have a contractual relationship with other generic registries for back-end services. ? What is commercial? The old division within the users House between commercial and non-commercial is no longer relevant. Just within the 400 .brand registry applicants, some 15 are not-for-profit organisations representing some $69 billion in annual turnover. Two of these are current BRG members. b) Commonality. The commonality assumption was historically questionable. The commonality of interests within the old groups has changed. ? It was never true that users within each House acted as if they were impacted in the same way by policy. There has often been disagreement between commercial and non-commercial users, and between types of non-commercial user. This has been seen most clearly on issues connected with crime prevention (such as accurate Whois records and a difference of opinion on the balance of freedom of speech versus crime prevention). ? It is no longer true that Registries are impacted economically by policy in the same way. The 400 .brand Registries will have a different view on many policy issues to the 800 generic Registries. This divide will be most clear where there is a choice between the costs imposed by a policy and the benefits of that policy such as crime prevention. In such a choice, generic registries and brand registries will typically have different opinions on cost versus benefit. c) Balance between the Houses. There is no objective reason for the current balance of votes. ? The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was predicated not on an external objective reason but on an internal compromise. In the 1999 Names Council a number of groups self-formed. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO. These groups in 2008 were charged to agree GNSO reform but they disagreed. The Houses concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the link between seats and votes. It was adopted out of expediency. d) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency ? The Houses structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. ? Post 2008, for some groups Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier structure. This has created unnecessary complexity and duplicated meeting agendas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Tue May 5 03:43:46 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 23:43:46 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Personal comment on newest revision of the Westlake review In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B4516@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <55464713.7050100@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B4516@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <55483C72.1040702@acm.org> Hi, http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/new-constituency-recog-process-24jun11en.pdf II. Scope The processes, procedures, and criteria described in this document apply to Constituency applications intended for the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) within the Non-Contracted Parties House (ref. ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 5.4). So while people can petition the Board to form constituencies in the RySG or RsSG, they are not subject to this process as far as i know. There may be a newer reference but i can't find it. avri On 04-May-15 18:28, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Avri, > > > > I never thought that the constituency procedure was only created for > the NCPH. As far as I understand, the procedures could be applied in > the CPH as well. It so happened that the RySG developed a process for > including new groups without creating some of the complexities > associated with constituencies. But I don?t think that means that a > group couldn?t apply to be a constituency. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria > *Sent:* Sunday, May 03, 2015 12:05 PM > *To:* gnso-review-dt at icann.org > *Subject:* [gnso-review-dt] Personal comment on newest revision of the > Westlake review > > > > These comments are my own personal comments and do not reflect a > negotiated set of comments from amongst the NCSG members of the > Working party. > > > > While I can personally support most of the recommendations made by > Westlake in the report, I do have questions and concerns with some of > the discussions in document. First I will mention the specific > recommendations for which I have questions, later I list comments > based on their page number. > > > > ? Rec 22 seems too limited. Shouldn?t the GNSO council also > concern itself with the subject having been adequately covered. More > discussion below. > > > > ? Rec 26 seems to include the issue that the rules for new > constituencies have not been followed. > > > > While Westlake, and many others, do not like the rules as established > by the Board?s SIC, I do not believe there is evidence of those rules > having be flaunted or otherwise ignored. > > > > It should also be noted that the methods for initiating new > constituencies was only created for the NCPH and not for the CPH. So > perhaps a recommendation needs include some discussion of creating a > set of rules applicable to both houses equally. > > > > I agree that the default should include creating the new > constituencies, though perhaps we need a lighter weight notion of > constituency that is topical or based on interest, that is easier to > create and sunset. I also believe that constituency creation needs to > be done according to a set of rules and that they need to be created > in the proper stakeholder groups. I think the evidence of the > possible constituencies Westlake discussed is that they did not apply > to the correct stakeholder group. One could question whether the > current setup of the GNSO allowed any proper place for these > constituencies. > > > > An issue that could be discussed is whether the division of the GNSO > in 4 SG, leaves some organizations homeless as they may either fit > into any of the 4 SGs, or may be hybrid organizations that cannot find > a home in a strictly segmented set of stakeholder groups. Is there a > SG for every possible constituency? > > > > ? Page 13 > > > > Complexity deters newcomers. > > > > Is the report assuming that complexity can be removed, or that it be > mitigated by better explanations. > > > > ? Page 14 > > > > In addition, the current structure of the GNSO has been in place for > only about three years. From the Westlake Review Team?s professional > experience of structural change in many organisations of differing > types, this represents only a relatively short time for it to become > firmly established and for people to be fully familiar with it. > > > > The review could also have included an analysis of why such an > oppositional organization arrangement was a good thing that should be > allowed to become firmly established. I question the degree to which > the deleterious effects have been adequately studied. In most all of > the organization dynamics literature I have ever read, there is a > negative effect to creating a set of oppositional structures, as was > done in the past GNSO reform. Westlake could have done a great > service by including an analysis of this situation and the many ways > in which this oppositional setup has affected the GNSO. Yes, we have > learned to live with it, but largely we do that by avoiding the > contentious issues as much as possible. Even Section 9 of the > Westlake report that has an extensive discussion of the structural > issue does not recommend further study. > > > > Since Westlake does not wish to recommend further work on this > subject, I recommend that the GNSO Review Party make its own > recommendation vis a vis further work on this topic. Various members > of the Board have been quite outspoken on the idea that in the ICANN > bottom-up model, if we don?t like the structure, then we should > recommend a way to fix it. We do not need a review or a SIC to give > us permission to fix what needs to be fixed. We should just do it. > Perhaps this is an issue that needs to be taken to GNSO Council. > > > > ? Page 40 > > > > The ATRT2 figures are from 2013. Has there been any work done to > check and see whether there has been any change since then or what the > rate of change is? > > > > ? Page 43, > > > > The description of the Policy & Implementation team work seems > incomplete and dated. Might be worth giving a timestamp for when that > description was made. > > > > ? Page 50 > > > > The average length of a PDP is between 2 and 3 years > > > > All the other figures in that section appear to be in days. Would be > interesting to know what the actual average was in days. 2-3 years is > such a wide range. Standard deviation would also be interesting. > This comments also relates to the charts on Section 9. At the very > least, there should be annotation that this data come from before > outreach and does not show any effects that might have been achieved > by the outreach program. > > > > ? Page 71 > > > > Among the things I have assumed the council should ensure, in addition > to those listed, is that all of the issues have had a full exploration > and that the opinions of all stakeholders as is possible has been > taken adequately into account. As this does not figure on the > Westlake list, I am wondering whether they consider this an > inappropriate activity for the council. Does Westlake consider it > appropriate for the GNSO council to send a report back to a WG if they > feel the work has not been complete in respect to diversity of view or > full discussion of substance? There are issues concerned with the > substance of an issue, yet Westlake seems to indicate that the council > should have no concern for the substance. > > > > ? Page 72 > > > > We acknowledge that the Board is the peak governing body of ICANN, so > it would be inappropriate to limit its authority > > > > The current CWG Accountability has taken issue with a structure where > the Board is supreme in all substantive issues. Would Westlake see > this as inappropriate? > > > > ? Page 81 > > > > Following the BGC WG review, but before the new and final Constituency > process was implemented (2011), staff developed a two-step process > (Notice of Intent to form a New Constituency, New Constituency > petition and Charter applications) for new constituency applications > > > > The Westlake does not note that this procedure was created only for > the NCPH. There is not such procedure for creating constituencies in > the CPH. It has never been clear why such a policy should only apply > to half of the GNSO. Does Westlake have any input on this situation? > Did it figure into the analysis? > > > > ? Page 82 > > > > and took no action on the Consumer Constituency as it was still being > worked on > > > > It should be noted that while the candidate constituency still exists > in the NCSG, and it still holds observer seats in all NCSG committees > as defined in the NCSG Charter, it has not been active in years. > Despite this, no attempt has been made to end its candidacy. Several > attempts have been made to resurrect it, and some NCSG members still > hold out hope for it (I am a NCSG member of the candidate Consumer > constituency as well as of NCUC and supported its creation) completing > the ICANN policy and NCSG charter?s required activities for full > status. Would seem appropriate to discuss the case completely as > opposed to allowing it to appear that this was somehow a prejudicial > act by the NCSG. > > > > ? Page 83 > > > > In the discussion of the Cybercafe constituency applications Westlake > avoids several salient facts: > > > > ? The NCSG charter, as approved by the ICANN Board, as well as > the defined process for creating new constituencies requires the > constituencies not only be appropriate to the SG group to which they > are applying, i.e be non commercial in the NCSG or be commercial in > the CSG, but that there should not be an overlap with existing > constituencies. > > ? The statement related to the fact that if the applicants of > the Cybecafe had paid attention to the requirements for the NCSG, they > would have realized that as commercial entities they were not > qualified for the Non Commercial SG. This was backed up by the Board. > > > > Again this makes the NCSG look like it did some inappropriate when it > was following procedures and its own Board approved charter. > > > > Does Westlake recommend that: > > ? It is ok to put commercial constituencies in the NCSG and > non commercial constituencies in the CSG? > > ? It is ok to create constituencies with overlapping mandates > on the same SG? > > > > Does Westlake have a recommendation for how to handle groups that file > an intent to form a constituency without being fit for any of the four > existing SGs? > > > > ? Page 85 > > > > What evidence is there to substantiate: > > > > - Less ?pure? or altruistic motives, such as protecting one?s own > position, status in the GNSO/ICANN community (or with an employer), or, > > ? In other instances, individual concerns that if someone new comes > in, the replaced incumbent will lose their own travel funding, > regardless of the GNSO?s greater interest of having the most > appropriate people for the role ? rather than just those who can > defend their positions the most effectively. > > > > What Westlake interprets as ?protecting a patch? may just be a strong > feeling in support of adhering to the processes as negotiated and > agreed to by constituencies, stakeholder groups and the Board. To > indicate otherwise based on hearsay and without adequate substantive > proof is somewhat disparaging of hard working sincere individuals. > While this may indeed occur, I am also not well placed to judge the > intentions of others, it seems inappropriate to include such claims in > a review. Isn?t it enough to say that not enough has been done to > create new constituencies without casting aspersions on a population > of hard working volunteers? Such evaluations, albeit very general and > not about any individual or SG, seems like they should be avoided in a > review. > > > > ? Page 91 > > > > NPOC is used both as an example of the only new constituency chartered > and as a bludgeon against the NCSG. Yes, there have been, and > occasionally still are rough times between the sister non commercial > constituencies. But we work together and produce substantive NCSG > statements that include the support of both constituencies, our > candidate constituency and individuals. Not only did we successfully > negotiate the creation of this new constituency according to rules > that were being developed as part of the process itself, the NCSG > charter was written with a full set of appeals for any occasion in > which a constituency, or any group of participants, felt that the NCSG > Committee decisions treated them unfairly or improperly. Initiating > these NCSG appeals takes a very low threshold (15 members out of > hundreds), yet not a single appeal has been initiated since the > charter was approved in 2011. > > > > A claim is also made about the lack of new leadership in the NCUC and > the NCSG. If one were to look at the leadership of the NCSG, or NCUC > for that matter, more than half got involved with ICANN in the last > few years. Many are newcomers in their first 2-3 years of > participation in the NCSG. Yes some of us old timers still hold > posts, but we are by no means the majority. Many of our senior members > work in the background on WGs and CWGs and penning draft statements > without holding a leadership post. Many of the senior people long for > a new younger generation to take of the SG and actively recruit > replacements for the roles they hold. Would have been good to see > that accounted for in the analysis. > > > > ? Page 113 > > > > I believe in the discussion of the GNSO as an artificial construct > Westlake makes a category error. But first, in a sense all of the > SOAC are essentially artificial constructs that have evolved over the > course of years to reflect the reality of participation. The category > error has to do with comparing the GNSO to the ALAC. That is wrong. > The GNSO is to the GNSO Council as the At-Large is to the ALAC. One > cannot compare the GNSO with the ALAC, though they could compare the > GNSO Council to the ALAC. As someone who participates in both the > At-large ,and the GNSO, I believe there is very little difference > between the relationship among the RALOs of the At-large and the > relationship among SGs of the GNSO. I see them as similar structure, > though along different discrimination lines, geography and interest. > This is not to say wee don?t need better communication across the > silos, but merely to argue that the GNSO is not that different in this > respect of other organizations that have a layers internal structure. > > > > ? Page 116 > > > > I find the appropriation of Sir Winston?s adage a bit overstated in > relation to the GNSO. He was talking about Democracy. While the > quote can be appropriately applied to something as fundamental as the > multistakeholder model of participatory democracy, I find its > application to the GNSO a bit puzzling. Even if the quote did not > trivialize the original utterance, I see little basis for a judgement > that many other schemes have been tried and been shown to be wanting. > > > > Despite my comments, I want to reiterate that I take little issue with > the specific recommendations. I thank the Westlake Review team for > having produced a mostly balanced 2nd revision of their report and for > giving us yet another chance to review their work before it is submitted. > > > > Avri Doria > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Tue May 5 03:53:22 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 23:53:22 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B4449@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <55464713.7050100@acm.org> <266697C448FB40BE902B4874FCA27472@ZaparazziL11> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B4449@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <55483EB2.40901@acm.org> Hi, I agree with Chuck's history. We have had double voting, either directly by giving the 2x votes before the 'improvements' or indirectly in the 'improved' GNSO by having half as many people have an equal vote due to complicated formulas few, well maybe Marika, Glen and he rest of the staff, remember without a cheat sheet. In fact so complciated it is included at the bottom of each meeting's agenda. As to the second point about this being fair. While it may be good for business, I am not sure the rest of the community is as certain of its fairnness. If one thinks about contracts as ICANN' method of 'regulating', giving the regualted half the vote is extraordinary. But I understand the CPH wanting to keep the status quo It is very much to their advantage. I don't expect that to change in my lifetime. avri On 04-May-15 18:04, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Philip, > > > > I disagree with your argument and history in your fifth point about > the balance between the houses. In the original DNSO, there was no > balance. Non-contracted parties outnumbered contracted parties 5 to > 2. That resulted in contracted parties having negligible impact even > though they were required to implement consensus policies and hence > could be heavily impacted by them. It was a terrible model from a > business point of view. > > > > This was corrected in the first GNSO reform. That is when the balance > of voting was instituted. That principle was simply continued in > later reforms. The balance of voting existed before the bicameral > house model was implemented. > > > > Finally, I don?t think that the reason for balanced voting has changed > at all. If either contracted or non-contracted parties have a voting > advantage, then an imbalance will be created that unfairly favors one > side and lessons the chances for all parties working toward meaningful > consensus. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *BRG > *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 4:57 AM > *To:* gnso-review-dt at icann.org > *Subject:* [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake > review > > > > I would like to thank Westlake for the latest report and make the > following 5 comments and recommendations. > > *1. Page 14 preamble on structure** > *"Many people commented on the GNSO?s structure and complexity and > argued that these needed to change. We do not consider that the GNSO?s > structure is perfect, or that it cannot be improved, but, having > analysed the issues in some detail, our view is that the structure of > the GNSO is not the main cause of its most pressing challenges. > In addition, the current structure of the GNSO has been in place for > only about three years." > This comment is misleading. > The 2 House structure was implemented in 2008. That is 7 years ago. > Do Westlake mean the current form of the PDP and Working Groups? > This is different. > *Please change the text to clarify.** > * > *2. The "pressing challenges" and recommendations 36 - 41.** > *These all focus on diversity. > They are fine recommendations but NOT ones that addresses the issue > of structure. *Please change the text to clarify.* > > *3.ICANN Board** > *In its resolution of 28 September 2013 the ICANN Board stated: > "*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. ? > *Why is this Board resolution not addressed in the report?** > * > 4. Page 14: "Many people commented on the GNSO?s structure and > complexity and argued that these needed to change" > *Why is the opinion of "many people" not addressed in the report?** > * > 5. Understanding the past and the present. > Little attempt to analyse the lack of relevance* today of the 2 Houses > structure has been made. > *Why is this?** > **See below for a snip from the BRG survey submission > > > Philip Sheppard > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > *EDIT FROM BRG PAPER AND SURVEY SUBMISSION* > > The 2008 GNSO reform created two Houses within the GNSO: the > Contracted Party House and the Non-Contracted Party House. Put simply > there is a suppliers House and a users House. And those Houses were > given equal votes. This was a change from the GNSO of several separate > Constituencies. This created a 4-tier structure. > > > > The rationale for the 2008 reform was threefold. > > a) Separable interests. > > There was a belief that the underlying user groups and supplier groups > had separable interests that could be divided into six separable > entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual > property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). > > > > b) Commonality. > > The rationale for the two Houses was that suppliers are impacted > economically by policy and may be impacted in the same way: and users > are impacted in a variety of ways by policy and may be impacted in the > same way. > > > > c) Balance between the Houses. > > There was a belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be > balanced. > > > > _Issues_ > > In 2014, everything has changed. The rationale has changed. Indeed, > the current structure creates new conflicts of interest. > > > > a) Separable interests. > > While different interests continue, it is no longer true that the > separable interests are accurately reflected by the six separable > entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual > property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial > interests). There are two reasons for this. > > ? Conflicting relationships. There is a complex web of > relationships that overlap and conflict within the six groups. A > typical .brand registry may be simultaneously: a Registry, a Business > Constituency member, an Intellectual Property Constituency member, and > have a contractual relationship with other generic registries for > back-end services. > > ? What is commercial? The old division within the users House > between commercial and non-commercial is no longer relevant. Just > within the 400 .brand registry applicants, some 15 are not-for-profit > organisations representing some $69 billion in annual turnover. Two of > these are current BRG members. > > > > b) Commonality. > > The commonality assumption was historically questionable. > > The commonality of interests within the old groups has changed. > > ? It was _never_ true that users within each House acted as if > they were impacted in the same way by policy. There has often been > disagreement between commercial and non-commercial users, and between > types of non-commercial user. This has been seen most clearly on > issues connected with crime prevention (such as accurate Whois records > and a difference of opinion on the balance of freedom of speech versus > crime prevention). > > ? It is _no longer_ true that Registries are impacted > economically by policy in the same way. The 400 .brand Registries will > have a different view on many policy issues to the 800 generic > Registries. This divide will be most clear where there is a choice > between the costs imposed by a policy and the benefits of that policy > such as crime prevention. In such a choice, generic registries and > brand registries will typically have different opinions on cost versus > benefit. > > > > c) Balance between the Houses. > > There is no objective reason for the current balance of votes. > > ? The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should > be balanced was predicated not on an external objective reason but on > an internal compromise. In the 1999 Names Council a number of groups > self-formed. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO. These > groups in 2008 were charged to agree GNSO reform but they disagreed. > The Houses concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this > disagreement by severing the link between seats and votes. It was > adopted out of expediency. > > > > d) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group > /Constituency > > ? The Houses structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. > > ? Post 2008, for some groups Council changed from a 2-tier to > a 4-tier structure. This has created unnecessary complexity and > duplicated meeting agendas. > > > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Tue May 5 07:00:43 2015 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 07:00:43 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] MP3 recording GNSO Review Working Party teleconference Monday 4th May 2015 15:00UTC Message-ID: Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Review Working Party teleconference held on GNSO Review Working Party teleconference Monday, 04 May 1500UTC: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-04may15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may 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 Jennifer Standiford Klaus Stoll Philip Sheppard Chuck Gomes Avri Doria Jeff Neuman Wolf Ulrich- Knoben Apologies: Rafik Dammak Bill Drake ICANN Staff: Mary Wong Marika Konings Larisa Gurnick Charla Shambley Lars Hoffman 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 on the 4th May 2015 Chuck Gomes:Hi all. Jen Wolfe:Hi everyone - welcome! We're just waiting for the Westlake team to join and then will get started. Jeff Neuman (Com Laude):Hello all. I am a late comer to this group, but the registrars have asked me to join this group because they have not been able to give it as much attention as they want. I am just starting to get caught up and look forward to helping out. Jen Wolfe:Thanks, Jeff, glad you are here! Larisa Gurnick:Jeff, welcome! Please let me or Charla know if you need help with background information or documents. Avri Doria:this is a very peaceful call. Jeff Neuman (Com Laude):Thanks Larisa. I have the docs and am starting to go through them. Avri Doria:it is the middle of the night were they are, isn't it. Philip Sheppard BRG:NZ is 3.12 am -lovely Avri Doria:is going to be spread ...? you mean it is going to get worse? Philip Sheppard BRG:I see no issue with further delay if that helps better feedback Avri Doria:a nice long comment period. Philip Sheppard BRG:Support Chuck's suggestion and Jen's Philip Sheppard BRG:But the key issue is that all recommendations are do what we do now a little better Philip Sheppard BRG:A rather tame outcome Larisa Gurnick:Jen and Chuck - would you be open to identify several Working Party members to work with staff to develop a template? Larisa Gurnick:Thank you! Nathalie Peregrine:Scrolling has been enabled for all Larisa Gurnick:Chuck, we will take your suggestion and add all comments in redlined mode to the document, along with your comments Larisa Gurnick:@ Philip - please note the response from the SIC to the Working Party at the start of the reviews -https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48337499/SIC%20Response%20to%20Request%20for%20Clarification%20from%20GNSO%20Review%20Working%20Party.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1430750957179&api=v2 Philip Sheppard BRG:@ Avri +1 Philip Sheppard BRG:@ Larissa - agreed. The key issue is a disconnect between the Board and its subsidiary the SIC. This disconnect shoud be highlighted. Avri Doria:But if they do not have recommendations we think they should have, we can't wait until the implementaiton phase to add them. Philip Sheppard BRG:Agree with Avri. There is no logic to believe you can add new substance in an implementation phase Avri Doria:i am not asking that Westlake add the recommendatons, but that we make them. Larisa Gurnick:Staff will make sure that Westlake review in detail the transcript and all of your comments since they were not able to join the call. Philip Sheppard BRG:@ Chuck - the world has changed since Marika Konings:Shouldn't the GNSO work drive the strategic plan, instead of the other way around? Philip Sheppard BRG:@ Marika +1 Larisa Gurnick:Staff will flag questions pertaining to Structure and Strategic Plan for Westlake to address at the next call, along with other key points that you will raise. Nathalie Peregrine:Jennifer Standiford has joined the AC room Philip Sheppard BRG:Thanks Larisa Philip Sheppard BRG:BTW Rec 24 is very good! Philip Sheppard BRG:Agree with Avri Rec 22 is overly simplistic Jennifer Standiford:could people mute their phone s if not speaking? Philip Sheppard BRG:Re Rec 38, I support Chuck. There is a pragmatic issue here too. The work does need to be done! Philip Sheppard BRG:Page 17 is missing that Sep 2013 board resolution Philip Sheppard BRG:...the page 19 fotnote 7 is inadequate given the importance of the resolution Philip Sheppard BRG:Late comment. Pgw 16 "At ICANN's inception in 1999, it was structured into supporting organisations -" This is not correct Larisa Gurnick:@Avri re: recent improvements in diversity, particularly since ATRT2 - can you please point Westlake to the appropriate data to review this? Avri Doria:there is no data that i know of. just an anecdotal expereince of greater diversity. my point was they should have done that. or at least admit that they have not updated it to reflect any changes. they are basing recommendation on possibly stale data. Larisa Gurnick:Thanks for the clarification, Avri Avri Doria:leveraging work they did not update. that is a pity. Avri Doria:my next is page 71/72 Marika Konings:For the record, very much agree with Chuck's comment. I am not aware of any instances in whihc the Council has drafted an amendment to a policy recommendation. Philip Sheppard BRG:y comment may have been out of place after all ! Marika Konings:in recent history Philip Sheppard BRG:Page 84 The GNSO's structure is designed to be adaptable and 'future-proofed' by allowing for the creation of new constituencies as needs arise, within the four stakeholder groups. This is inaccurate. Cs exist in one house only Philip Sheppard BRG:Westlake recognise this in the following paragraphs but the opening sentence needs improving please Philip Sheppard BRG:9.2 Merits inclusion of .brands as one third of TLD applicants Avri Doria:i have comment on 113, 116 Philip Sheppard BRG:9.4 Diversity should include diversity of new TLDs Avri Doria:i'd say it was closer to a Sweidsh model thant a US model Marika Konings:Voting typically only happened at the GNSO Council level. Marika Konings:happens Philip Sheppard BRG:P115 "Changes to structure may be among the most visible of changes to an organization, but amending the structure should not be confused with addressing core issues" This misses the pointthat the environment has changed dramactically Philip Sheppard BRG:The changed environment is a "core isssue" Avri Doria:Well, it they agreed, it is not really us who need to send an apology. Chuck Gomes:Thanks everyone. Philip Sheppard BRG:Thanks all Larisa Gurnick:Thank you everyone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From philip at brandregistrygroup.org Tue May 5 07:46:12 2015 From: philip at brandregistrygroup.org (BRG) Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 09:46:12 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review In-Reply-To: <55483EB2.40901@acm.org> References: <55464713.7050100@acm.org> <266697C448FB40BE902B4874FCA27472@ZaparazziL11> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B4449@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <55483EB2.40901@acm.org> Message-ID: <53D3F0680DF549E7B129CCB51F93BBD3@ZaparazziL11> Indeed Chuck is correct in that the double vote was an earlier change in the GNSO. My summary over-simplified. Apologies. I should have stuck to the usual 157 pages. Philip _____ From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: 05 May 2015 05:53 To: Gomes, Chuck; BRG; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review Hi, I agree with Chuck's history. We have had double voting, either directly by giving the 2x votes before the 'improvements' or indirectly in the 'improved' GNSO by having half as many people have an equal vote due to complicated formulas few, well maybe Marika, Glen and he rest of the staff, remember without a cheat sheet. In fact so complciated it is included at the bottom of each meeting's agenda. As to the second point about this being fair. While it may be good for business, I am not sure the rest of the community is as certain of its fairnness. If one thinks about contracts as ICANN' method of 'regulating', giving the regualted half the vote is extraordinary. But I understand the CPH wanting to keep the status quo It is very much to their advantage. I don't expect that to change in my lifetime. avri On 04-May-15 18:04, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Philip, I disagree with your argument and history in your fifth point about the balance between the houses. In the original DNSO, there was no balance. Non-contracted parties outnumbered contracted parties 5 to 2. That resulted in contracted parties having negligible impact even though they were required to implement consensus policies and hence could be heavily impacted by them. It was a terrible model from a business point of view. This was corrected in the first GNSO reform. That is when the balance of voting was instituted. That principle was simply continued in later reforms. The balance of voting existed before the bicameral house model was implemented. Finally, I don?t think that the reason for balanced voting has changed at all. If either contracted or non-contracted parties have a voting advantage, then an imbalance will be created that unfairly favors one side and lessons the chances for all parties working toward meaningful consensus. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of BRG Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 4:57 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review I would like to thank Westlake for the latest report and make the following 5 comments and recommendations. 1. Page 14 preamble on structure "Many people commented on the GNSO?s structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change. We do not consider that the GNSO?s structure is perfect, or that it cannot be improved, but, having analysed the issues in some detail, our view is that the structure of the GNSO is not the main cause of its most pressing challenges. In addition, the current structure of the GNSO has been in place for only about three years." This comment is misleading. The 2 House structure was implemented in 2008. That is 7 years ago. Do Westlake mean the current form of the PDP and Working Groups? This is different. Please change the text to clarify. 2. The "pressing challenges" and recommendations 36 - 41. These all focus on diversity. They are fine recommendations but NOT ones that addresses the issue of structure. Please change the text to clarify. 3.ICANN Board In its resolution of 28 September 2013 the ICANN Board stated: "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. ? Why is this Board resolution not addressed in the report? 4. Page 14: "Many people commented on the GNSO?s structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change" Why is the opinion of "many people" not addressed in the report? 5. Understanding the past and the present. Little attempt to analyse the lack of relevance* today of the 2 Houses structure has been made. Why is this? *See below for a snip from the BRG survey submission Philip Sheppard --------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT FROM BRG PAPER AND SURVEY SUBMISSION The 2008 GNSO reform created two Houses within the GNSO: the Contracted Party House and the Non-Contracted Party House. Put simply there is a suppliers House and a users House. And those Houses were given equal votes. This was a change from the GNSO of several separate Constituencies. This created a 4-tier structure. The rationale for the 2008 reform was threefold. a) Separable interests. There was a belief that the underlying user groups and supplier groups had separable interests that could be divided into six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). b) Commonality. The rationale for the two Houses was that suppliers are impacted economically by policy and may be impacted in the same way: and users are impacted in a variety of ways by policy and may be impacted in the same way. c) Balance between the Houses. There was a belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced. Issues In 2014, everything has changed. The rationale has changed. Indeed, the current structure creates new conflicts of interest. a) Separable interests. While different interests continue, it is no longer true that the separable interests are accurately reflected by the six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). There are two reasons for this. ? Conflicting relationships. There is a complex web of relationships that overlap and conflict within the six groups. A typical .brand registry may be simultaneously: a Registry, a Business Constituency member, an Intellectual Property Constituency member, and have a contractual relationship with other generic registries for back-end services. ? What is commercial? The old division within the users House between commercial and non-commercial is no longer relevant. Just within the 400 .brand registry applicants, some 15 are not-for-profit organisations representing some $69 billion in annual turnover. Two of these are current BRG members. b) Commonality. The commonality assumption was historically questionable. The commonality of interests within the old groups has changed. ? It was never true that users within each House acted as if they were impacted in the same way by policy. There has often been disagreement between commercial and non-commercial users, and between types of non-commercial user. This has been seen most clearly on issues connected with crime prevention (such as accurate Whois records and a difference of opinion on the balance of freedom of speech versus crime prevention). ? It is no longer true that Registries are impacted economically by policy in the same way. The 400 .brand Registries will have a different view on many policy issues to the 800 generic Registries. This divide will be most clear where there is a choice between the costs imposed by a policy and the benefits of that policy such as crime prevention. In such a choice, generic registries and brand registries will typically have different opinions on cost versus benefit. c) Balance between the Houses. There is no objective reason for the current balance of votes. ? The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was predicated not on an external objective reason but on an internal compromise. In the 1999 Names Council a number of groups self-formed. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO. These groups in 2008 were charged to agree GNSO reform but they disagreed. The Houses concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the link between seats and votes. It was adopted out of expediency. d) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency ? The Houses structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. ? Post 2008, for some groups Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier structure. This has created unnecessary complexity and duplicated meeting agendas. _____ Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Tue May 5 14:25:47 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 14:25:47 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Personal comment on newest revision of the Westlake review In-Reply-To: <55483C72.1040702@acm.org> References: <55464713.7050100@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B4516@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <55483C72.1040702@acm.org> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B5933@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Thanks Avri. As you can tell, I totally forgot that or maybe missed it in the first place. Chuck From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 11:44 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Personal comment on newest revision of the Westlake review Hi, http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/new-constituency-recog-process-24jun11en.pdf II. Scope The processes, procedures, and criteria described in this document apply to Constituency applications intended for the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) within the Non-Contracted Parties House (ref. ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 5.4). So while people can petition the Board to form constituencies in the RySG or RsSG, they are not subject to this process as far as i know. There may be a newer reference but i can't find it. avri On 04-May-15 18:28, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Avri, I never thought that the constituency procedure was only created for the NCPH. As far as I understand, the procedures could be applied in the CPH as well. It so happened that the RySG developed a process for including new groups without creating some of the complexities associated with constituencies. But I don?t think that means that a group couldn?t apply to be a constituency. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 12:05 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Personal comment on newest revision of the Westlake review These comments are my own personal comments and do not reflect a negotiated set of comments from amongst the NCSG members of the Working party. While I can personally support most of the recommendations made by Westlake in the report, I do have questions and concerns with some of the discussions in document. First I will mention the specific recommendations for which I have questions, later I list comments based on their page number. ? Rec 22 seems too limited. Shouldn?t the GNSO council also concern itself with the subject having been adequately covered. More discussion below. ? Rec 26 seems to include the issue that the rules for new constituencies have not been followed. While Westlake, and many others, do not like the rules as established by the Board?s SIC, I do not believe there is evidence of those rules having be flaunted or otherwise ignored. It should also be noted that the methods for initiating new constituencies was only created for the NCPH and not for the CPH. So perhaps a recommendation needs include some discussion of creating a set of rules applicable to both houses equally. I agree that the default should include creating the new constituencies, though perhaps we need a lighter weight notion of constituency that is topical or based on interest, that is easier to create and sunset. I also believe that constituency creation needs to be done according to a set of rules and that they need to be created in the proper stakeholder groups. I think the evidence of the possible constituencies Westlake discussed is that they did not apply to the correct stakeholder group. One could question whether the current setup of the GNSO allowed any proper place for these constituencies. An issue that could be discussed is whether the division of the GNSO in 4 SG, leaves some organizations homeless as they may either fit into any of the 4 SGs, or may be hybrid organizations that cannot find a home in a strictly segmented set of stakeholder groups. Is there a SG for every possible constituency? ? Page 13 Complexity deters newcomers. Is the report assuming that complexity can be removed, or that it be mitigated by better explanations. ? Page 14 In addition, the current structure of the GNSO has been in place for only about three years. From the Westlake Review Team?s professional experience of structural change in many organisations of differing types, this represents only a relatively short time for it to become firmly established and for people to be fully familiar with it. The review could also have included an analysis of why such an oppositional organization arrangement was a good thing that should be allowed to become firmly established. I question the degree to which the deleterious effects have been adequately studied. In most all of the organization dynamics literature I have ever read, there is a negative effect to creating a set of oppositional structures, as was done in the past GNSO reform. Westlake could have done a great service by including an analysis of this situation and the many ways in which this oppositional setup has affected the GNSO. Yes, we have learned to live with it, but largely we do that by avoiding the contentious issues as much as possible. Even Section 9 of the Westlake report that has an extensive discussion of the structural issue does not recommend further study. Since Westlake does not wish to recommend further work on this subject, I recommend that the GNSO Review Party make its own recommendation vis a vis further work on this topic. Various members of the Board have been quite outspoken on the idea that in the ICANN bottom-up model, if we don?t like the structure, then we should recommend a way to fix it. We do not need a review or a SIC to give us permission to fix what needs to be fixed. We should just do it. Perhaps this is an issue that needs to be taken to GNSO Council. ? Page 40 The ATRT2 figures are from 2013. Has there been any work done to check and see whether there has been any change since then or what the rate of change is? ? Page 43, The description of the Policy & Implementation team work seems incomplete and dated. Might be worth giving a timestamp for when that description was made. ? Page 50 The average length of a PDP is between 2 and 3 years All the other figures in that section appear to be in days. Would be interesting to know what the actual average was in days. 2-3 years is such a wide range. Standard deviation would also be interesting. This comments also relates to the charts on Section 9. At the very least, there should be annotation that this data come from before outreach and does not show any effects that might have been achieved by the outreach program. ? Page 71 Among the things I have assumed the council should ensure, in addition to those listed, is that all of the issues have had a full exploration and that the opinions of all stakeholders as is possible has been taken adequately into account. As this does not figure on the Westlake list, I am wondering whether they consider this an inappropriate activity for the council. Does Westlake consider it appropriate for the GNSO council to send a report back to a WG if they feel the work has not been complete in respect to diversity of view or full discussion of substance? There are issues concerned with the substance of an issue, yet Westlake seems to indicate that the council should have no concern for the substance. ? Page 72 We acknowledge that the Board is the peak governing body of ICANN, so it would be inappropriate to limit its authority The current CWG Accountability has taken issue with a structure where the Board is supreme in all substantive issues. Would Westlake see this as inappropriate? ? Page 81 Following the BGC WG review, but before the new and final Constituency process was implemented (2011), staff developed a two-step process (Notice of Intent to form a New Constituency, New Constituency petition and Charter applications) for new constituency applications The Westlake does not note that this procedure was created only for the NCPH. There is not such procedure for creating constituencies in the CPH. It has never been clear why such a policy should only apply to half of the GNSO. Does Westlake have any input on this situation? Did it figure into the analysis? ? Page 82 and took no action on the Consumer Constituency as it was still being worked on It should be noted that while the candidate constituency still exists in the NCSG, and it still holds observer seats in all NCSG committees as defined in the NCSG Charter, it has not been active in years. Despite this, no attempt has been made to end its candidacy. Several attempts have been made to resurrect it, and some NCSG members still hold out hope for it (I am a NCSG member of the candidate Consumer constituency as well as of NCUC and supported its creation) completing the ICANN policy and NCSG charter?s required activities for full status. Would seem appropriate to discuss the case completely as opposed to allowing it to appear that this was somehow a prejudicial act by the NCSG. ? Page 83 In the discussion of the Cybercafe constituency applications Westlake avoids several salient facts: ? The NCSG charter, as approved by the ICANN Board, as well as the defined process for creating new constituencies requires the constituencies not only be appropriate to the SG group to which they are applying, i.e be non commercial in the NCSG or be commercial in the CSG, but that there should not be an overlap with existing constituencies. ? The statement related to the fact that if the applicants of the Cybecafe had paid attention to the requirements for the NCSG, they would have realized that as commercial entities they were not qualified for the Non Commercial SG. This was backed up by the Board. Again this makes the NCSG look like it did some inappropriate when it was following procedures and its own Board approved charter. Does Westlake recommend that: ? It is ok to put commercial constituencies in the NCSG and non commercial constituencies in the CSG? ? It is ok to create constituencies with overlapping mandates on the same SG? Does Westlake have a recommendation for how to handle groups that file an intent to form a constituency without being fit for any of the four existing SGs? ? Page 85 What evidence is there to substantiate: - Less ?pure? or altruistic motives, such as protecting one?s own position, status in the GNSO/ICANN community (or with an employer), or, ? In other instances, individual concerns that if someone new comes in, the replaced incumbent will lose their own travel funding, regardless of the GNSO?s greater interest of having the most appropriate people for the role ? rather than just those who can defend their positions the most effectively. What Westlake interprets as ?protecting a patch? may just be a strong feeling in support of adhering to the processes as negotiated and agreed to by constituencies, stakeholder groups and the Board. To indicate otherwise based on hearsay and without adequate substantive proof is somewhat disparaging of hard working sincere individuals. While this may indeed occur, I am also not well placed to judge the intentions of others, it seems inappropriate to include such claims in a review. Isn?t it enough to say that not enough has been done to create new constituencies without casting aspersions on a population of hard working volunteers? Such evaluations, albeit very general and not about any individual or SG, seems like they should be avoided in a review. ? Page 91 NPOC is used both as an example of the only new constituency chartered and as a bludgeon against the NCSG. Yes, there have been, and occasionally still are rough times between the sister non commercial constituencies. But we work together and produce substantive NCSG statements that include the support of both constituencies, our candidate constituency and individuals. Not only did we successfully negotiate the creation of this new constituency according to rules that were being developed as part of the process itself, the NCSG charter was written with a full set of appeals for any occasion in which a constituency, or any group of participants, felt that the NCSG Committee decisions treated them unfairly or improperly. Initiating these NCSG appeals takes a very low threshold (15 members out of hundreds), yet not a single appeal has been initiated since the charter was approved in 2011. A claim is also made about the lack of new leadership in the NCUC and the NCSG. If one were to look at the leadership of the NCSG, or NCUC for that matter, more than half got involved with ICANN in the last few years. Many are newcomers in their first 2-3 years of participation in the NCSG. Yes some of us old timers still hold posts, but we are by no means the majority. Many of our senior members work in the background on WGs and CWGs and penning draft statements without holding a leadership post. Many of the senior people long for a new younger generation to take of the SG and actively recruit replacements for the roles they hold. Would have been good to see that accounted for in the analysis. ? Page 113 I believe in the discussion of the GNSO as an artificial construct Westlake makes a category error. But first, in a sense all of the SOAC are essentially artificial constructs that have evolved over the course of years to reflect the reality of participation. The category error has to do with comparing the GNSO to the ALAC. That is wrong. The GNSO is to the GNSO Council as the At-Large is to the ALAC. One cannot compare the GNSO with the ALAC, though they could compare the GNSO Council to the ALAC. As someone who participates in both the At-large ,and the GNSO, I believe there is very little difference between the relationship among the RALOs of the At-large and the relationship among SGs of the GNSO. I see them as similar structure, though along different discrimination lines, geography and interest. This is not to say wee don?t need better communication across the silos, but merely to argue that the GNSO is not that different in this respect of other organizations that have a layers internal structure. ? Page 116 I find the appropriation of Sir Winston?s adage a bit overstated in relation to the GNSO. He was talking about Democracy. While the quote can be appropriately applied to something as fundamental as the multistakeholder model of participatory democracy, I find its application to the GNSO a bit puzzling. Even if the quote did not trivialize the original utterance, I see little basis for a judgement that many other schemes have been tried and been shown to be wanting. Despite my comments, I want to reiterate that I take little issue with the specific recommendations. I thank the Westlake Review team for having produced a mostly balanced 2nd revision of their report and for giving us yet another chance to review their work before it is submitted. Avri Doria ________________________________ [Avast logo] This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Tue May 5 19:52:00 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 19:52:00 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review In-Reply-To: <93A7CC56-1B2A-474A-97B6-045FD9015A8C@blacknight.com> References: <55464713.7050100@acm.org> <266697C448FB40BE902B4874FCA27472@ZaparazziL11> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B4449@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <93A7CC56-1B2A-474A-97B6-045FD9015A8C@blacknight.com> Message-ID: No surprise here, but I fully agree with Michele. And certainly ?fairness? is in the eye of the beholder. The general notion is that any change or policy must include support from those parties who bear the burden (& liability) of implementation. Seems like an important component of a Consensus-Based organization. Thanks? J. From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Date: Monday, May 4, 2015 at 17:46 To: "Gomes, Chuck" >, BRG >, "gnso-review-dt at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review +1 Chuck I don?t have Chuck?s historical memory, but I strongly agree with the points he raised. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Chuck Gomes Date: Monday 4 May 2015 23:04 To: BRG, "gnso-review-dt at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review Philip, I disagree with your argument and history in your fifth point about the balance between the houses. In the original DNSO, there was no balance. Non-contracted parties outnumbered contracted parties 5 to 2. That resulted in contracted parties having negligible impact even though they were required to implement consensus policies and hence could be heavily impacted by them. It was a terrible model from a business point of view. This was corrected in the first GNSO reform. That is when the balance of voting was instituted. That principle was simply continued in later reforms. The balance of voting existed before the bicameral house model was implemented. Finally, I don?t think that the reason for balanced voting has changed at all. If either contracted or non-contracted parties have a voting advantage, then an imbalance will be created that unfairly favors one side and lessons the chances for all parties working toward meaningful consensus. Chuck From:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of BRG Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 4:57 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review I would like to thank Westlake for the latest report and make the following 5 comments and recommendations. 1. Page 14 preamble on structure "Many people commented on the GNSO?s structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change. We do not consider that the GNSO?s structure is perfect, or that it cannot be improved, but, having analysed the issues in some detail, our view is that the structure of the GNSO is not the main cause of its most pressing challenges. In addition, the current structure of the GNSO has been in place for only about three years." This comment is misleading. The 2 House structure was implemented in 2008. That is 7 years ago. Do Westlake mean the current form of the PDP and Working Groups? This is different. Please change the text to clarify. 2. The "pressing challenges" and recommendations 36 - 41. These all focus on diversity. They are fine recommendations but NOT ones that addresses the issue of structure. Please change the text to clarify. 3.ICANN Board In its resolution of 28 September 2013 the ICANN Board stated: "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. ? Why is this Board resolution not addressed in the report? 4. Page 14: "Many people commented on the GNSO?s structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change" Why is the opinion of "many people" not addressed in the report? 5. Understanding the past and the present. Little attempt to analyse the lack of relevance* today of the 2 Houses structure has been made. Why is this? *See below for a snip from the BRG survey submission Philip Sheppard --------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT FROM BRG PAPER AND SURVEY SUBMISSION The 2008 GNSO reform created two Houses within the GNSO: the Contracted Party House and the Non-Contracted Party House. Put simply there is a suppliers House and a users House. And those Houses were given equal votes. This was a change from the GNSO of several separate Constituencies. This created a 4-tier structure. The rationale for the 2008 reform was threefold. a) Separable interests. There was a belief that the underlying user groups and supplier groups had separable interests that could be divided into six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). b) Commonality. The rationale for the two Houses was that suppliers are impacted economically by policy and may be impacted in the same way: and users are impacted in a variety of ways by policy and may be impacted in the same way. c) Balance between the Houses. There was a belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced. Issues In 2014, everything has changed. The rationale has changed. Indeed, the current structure creates new conflicts of interest. a) Separable interests. While different interests continue, it is no longer true that the separable interests are accurately reflected by the six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). There are two reasons for this. ? Conflicting relationships. There is a complex web of relationships that overlap and conflict within the six groups. A typical .brand registry may be simultaneously: a Registry, a Business Constituency member, an Intellectual Property Constituency member, and have a contractual relationship with other generic registries for back-end services. ? What is commercial? The old division within the users House between commercial and non-commercial is no longer relevant. Just within the 400 .brand registry applicants, some 15 are not-for-profit organisations representing some $69 billion in annual turnover. Two of these are current BRG members. b) Commonality. The commonality assumption was historically questionable. The commonality of interests within the old groups has changed. ? It was never true that users within each House acted as if they were impacted in the same way by policy. There has often been disagreement between commercial and non-commercial users, and between types of non-commercial user. This has been seen most clearly on issues connected with crime prevention (such as accurate Whois records and a difference of opinion on the balance of freedom of speech versus crime prevention). ? It is no longer true that Registries are impacted economically by policy in the same way. The 400 .brand Registries will have a different view on many policy issues to the 800 generic Registries. This divide will be most clear where there is a choice between the costs imposed by a policy and the benefits of that policy such as crime prevention. In such a choice, generic registries and brand registries will typically have different opinions on cost versus benefit. c) Balance between the Houses. There is no objective reason for the current balance of votes. ? The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was predicated not on an external objective reason but on an internal compromise. In the 1999 Names Council a number of groups self-formed. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO. These groups in 2008 were charged to agree GNSO reform but they disagreed. The Houses concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the link between seats and votes. It was adopted out of expediency. d) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency ? The Houses structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. ? Post 2008, for some groups Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier structure. This has created unnecessary complexity and duplicated meeting agendas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From philip at brandregistrygroup.org Tue May 5 20:15:41 2015 From: philip at brandregistrygroup.org (BRG) Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 22:15:41 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review In-Reply-To: References: <55464713.7050100@acm.org> <266697C448FB40BE902B4874FCA27472@ZaparazziL11> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B4449@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <93A7CC56-1B2A-474A-97B6-045FD9015A8C@blacknight.com> Message-ID: <14DF5A995E274F04AA00CB4B15020A92@ZaparazziL11> James, you said "any change or policy must include support from those parties who bear the burden (& liability) of implementation" This is so true and an element often missed in ICANN politics. This is the essence of the debate the BRG is creating now for an ICANN fit for the future not rooted in its past. Philip _____ From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] Sent: 05 May 2015 21:52 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Gomes, Chuck; BRG; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review No surprise here, but I fully agree with Michele. And certainly ?fairness? is in the eye of the beholder. The general notion is that any change or policy must include support from those parties who bear the burden (& liability) of implementation. Seems like an important component of a Consensus-Based organization. Thanks? J. From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Date: Monday, May 4, 2015 at 17:46 To: "Gomes, Chuck" , BRG , "gnso-review-dt at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review +1 Chuck I don?t have Chuck?s historical memory, but I strongly agree with the points he raised. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Chuck Gomes Date: Monday 4 May 2015 23:04 To: BRG, "gnso-review-dt at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review Philip, I disagree with your argument and history in your fifth point about the balance between the houses. In the original DNSO, there was no balance. Non-contracted parties outnumbered contracted parties 5 to 2. That resulted in contracted parties having negligible impact even though they were required to implement consensus policies and hence could be heavily impacted by them. It was a terrible model from a business point of view. This was corrected in the first GNSO reform. That is when the balance of voting was instituted. That principle was simply continued in later reforms. The balance of voting existed before the bicameral house model was implemented. Finally, I don?t think that the reason for balanced voting has changed at all. If either contracted or non-contracted parties have a voting advantage, then an imbalance will be created that unfairly favors one side and lessons the chances for all parties working toward meaningful consensus. Chuck From:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of BRG Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 4:57 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review I would like to thank Westlake for the latest report and make the following 5 comments and recommendations. 1. Page 14 preamble on structure "Many people commented on the GNSO?s structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change. We do not consider that the GNSO?s structure is perfect, or that it cannot be improved, but, having analysed the issues in some detail, our view is that the structure of the GNSO is not the main cause of its most pressing challenges. In addition, the current structure of the GNSO has been in place for only about three years." This comment is misleading. The 2 House structure was implemented in 2008. That is 7 years ago. Do Westlake mean the current form of the PDP and Working Groups? This is different. Please change the text to clarify. 2. The "pressing challenges" and recommendations 36 - 41. These all focus on diversity. They are fine recommendations but NOT ones that addresses the issue of structure. Please change the text to clarify. 3.ICANN Board In its resolution of 28 September 2013 the ICANN Board stated: "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. ? Why is this Board resolution not addressed in the report? 4. Page 14: "Many people commented on the GNSO?s structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change" Why is the opinion of "many people" not addressed in the report? 5. Understanding the past and the present. Little attempt to analyse the lack of relevance* today of the 2 Houses structure has been made. Why is this? *See below for a snip from the BRG survey submission Philip Sheppard --------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT FROM BRG PAPER AND SURVEY SUBMISSION The 2008 GNSO reform created two Houses within the GNSO: the Contracted Party House and the Non-Contracted Party House. Put simply there is a suppliers House and a users House. And those Houses were given equal votes. This was a change from the GNSO of several separate Constituencies. This created a 4-tier structure. The rationale for the 2008 reform was threefold. a) Separable interests. There was a belief that the underlying user groups and supplier groups had separable interests that could be divided into six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). b) Commonality. The rationale for the two Houses was that suppliers are impacted economically by policy and may be impacted in the same way: and users are impacted in a variety of ways by policy and may be impacted in the same way. c) Balance between the Houses. There was a belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced. Issues In 2014, everything has changed. The rationale has changed. Indeed, the current structure creates new conflicts of interest. a) Separable interests. While different interests continue, it is no longer true that the separable interests are accurately reflected by the six separable entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests). There are two reasons for this. ? Conflicting relationships. There is a complex web of relationships that overlap and conflict within the six groups. A typical .brand registry may be simultaneously: a Registry, a Business Constituency member, an Intellectual Property Constituency member, and have a contractual relationship with other generic registries for back-end services. ? What is commercial? The old division within the users House between commercial and non-commercial is no longer relevant. Just within the 400 .brand registry applicants, some 15 are not-for-profit organisations representing some $69 billion in annual turnover. Two of these are current BRG members. b) Commonality. The commonality assumption was historically questionable. The commonality of interests within the old groups has changed. ? It was never true that users within each House acted as if they were impacted in the same way by policy. There has often been disagreement between commercial and non-commercial users, and between types of non-commercial user. This has been seen most clearly on issues connected with crime prevention (such as accurate Whois records and a difference of opinion on the balance of freedom of speech versus crime prevention). ? It is no longer true that Registries are impacted economically by policy in the same way. The 400 .brand Registries will have a different view on many policy issues to the 800 generic Registries. This divide will be most clear where there is a choice between the costs imposed by a policy and the benefits of that policy such as crime prevention. In such a choice, generic registries and brand registries will typically have different opinions on cost versus benefit. c) Balance between the Houses. There is no objective reason for the current balance of votes. ? The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was predicated not on an external objective reason but on an internal compromise. In the 1999 Names Council a number of groups self-formed. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO. These groups in 2008 were charged to agree GNSO reform but they disagreed. The Houses concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the link between seats and votes. It was adopted out of expediency. d) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency ? The Houses structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. ? Post 2008, for some groups Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier structure. This has created unnecessary complexity and duplicated meeting agendas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Tue May 12 20:56:42 2015 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 20:56:42 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] MP3 recording GNSO Review Working Party teleconference 12th May 2015 19:00UTC Message-ID: <53774e3fe8874ba39754ca93995cacdd@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Review Working Party teleconference held on GNSO Review Working Party teleconference Tuesday, 12 May 2015 at 19:00 UTC: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-12may15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may 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 Klaus Stoll Chuck Gomes Avri Doria Rudi Vansnick Laura Covington Bill Drake Apologies: Rafik Dammak Michele Neylon Guest Speakers: Richard Westlake Colin Jackson ICANN Staff: Mary Wong Marika Konings Larisa Gurnick Charla Shambley Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Chat transcript: Terri Agnew:Dear all, Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Party on the 12th May 2015 Klaus Stoll:Hi all Colin Jackson:Yes, trying to solve the feedback problem at my end Colin Jackson:Can I get a dial-out please? If I turn on the mic I get feedback Terri Agnew:Hi Colin, I will send you a private AC chat Colin Jackson:Hi - we are wating for a dial out (COlin & Richard) Rudi Vansnick:sorry for being late, had to be present in the SCI call Terri Agnew:Welcome Rudi Vansnick Colin Jackson:still waiting for a dial out Rudi Vansnick:i just responded to Charla's mail about the meeting in BA Rudi Vansnick:i've iindicated i would be available on Sunday Charla Shambley:Thank you Rudi. Please keep me posted on your availability on Sunday. Terri Agnew:Transcript is available at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Charla Shambley:The document posted in the room incorporated all comments received via the mailing list. Chuck Gomes:Response in writing would be fine. Rudi Vansnick:in writing would be good Chuck Gomes:It might be helpful for Westlake to ask us any questions about our comments and questions. Larisa Gurnick:It may be helpful for Westlake to clarify what they intended by the recommendations pertaining to the SOI Chuck Gomes:I am comfortable. Charla Shambley:The Draft Report along with translations of the Executive Summary, and the document incorporating WP comments can be found on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/Draft+Report+of+the+Independent+Examiner Mary Wong:@Chuck, yes Terri Agnew:Bill Drake has joined Bill Drake:Hi, sorry for late arrival, mulltiple calls and schedule implosion Marika Konings:an update on the GNSO Review is also tentatively scheduled for Sunday afternoon (14.30 - 15.15) Marika Konings:as part of the GNSO weekend working session Marika Konings:From the staff side we would also like to go through the consolidated version to see if there are any additions from our side, if that is welcomed. Marika Konings:staff = Mary and I ;-) Avri Doria:it can't conflict with any CWG or CCWG Marika Konings:The GNSO related schedule is expected to be shared shortly Bill Drake:Mornings are all programmed too Mary Wong:There will be several GNSO WG meetings on Weds; and an SO/AC High Interest Topic session on Mon afternoon Mary Wong:(Not taking into account the CWG/CCWG sessions) Larisa Gurnick:What about Sunday morning? Rudi Vansnick:@Chuck: doodle good idea Bill Drake:Doodle fine but really need to see a draft scheduel Mary Wong:GNSO Sunday sessions likely start at 9, if that helps Marika Konings:I believe there is a CSG session on Sunday morning Marika Konings:DNS Women's b-fast is usually Monday morning Avri Doria:early might be filled (730) might have to move to early early (6) Bill Drake:why not start midnight meetings Avri Doria:ok Mary Wong:Not sure if they will have one but CSG usually does a breakfast meeting on Constituency Day Bill Drake:Not for those of us who do the Fellows thing Larisa Gurnick:Staff will launch a Doodle as suggested Chuck Gomes:Thanks everyone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Tue May 12 22:03:47 2015 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 22:03:47 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] **Updated attendance MP3 recording GNSO Review Working Party teleconference 12th May 2015 19:00UTC Message-ID: Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Review Working Party teleconference held on GNSO Review Working Party teleconference Tuesday, 12 May 2015 at 19:00 UTC: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-12may15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may 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 Klaus Stoll Chuck Gomes Avri Doria Rudi Vansnick Laura Covington Bill Drake Apologies: Rafik Dammak Michele Neylon Guest Speakers: Richard Westlake Colin Jackson Vaughan Renner ICANN Staff: Mary Wong Marika Konings Larisa Gurnick Charla Shambley Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Chat transcript: Terri Agnew:Dear all, Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Party on the 12th May 2015 Klaus Stoll:Hi all Colin Jackson:Yes, trying to solve the feedback problem at my end Colin Jackson:Can I get a dial-out please? If I turn on the mic I get feedback Terri Agnew:Hi Colin, I will send you a private AC chat Colin Jackson:Hi - we are wating for a dial out (COlin & Richard) Rudi Vansnick:sorry for being late, had to be present in the SCI call Terri Agnew:Welcome Rudi Vansnick Colin Jackson:still waiting for a dial out Rudi Vansnick:i just responded to Charla's mail about the meeting in BA Rudi Vansnick:i've iindicated i would be available on Sunday Charla Shambley:Thank you Rudi. Please keep me posted on your availability on Sunday. Terri Agnew:Transcript is available at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Charla Shambley:The document posted in the room incorporated all comments received via the mailing list. Chuck Gomes:Response in writing would be fine. Rudi Vansnick:in writing would be good Chuck Gomes:It might be helpful for Westlake to ask us any questions about our comments and questions. Larisa Gurnick:It may be helpful for Westlake to clarify what they intended by the recommendations pertaining to the SOI Chuck Gomes:I am comfortable. Charla Shambley:The Draft Report along with translations of the Executive Summary, and the document incorporating WP comments can be found on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/Draft+Report+of+the+Independent+Examiner Mary Wong:@Chuck, yes Terri Agnew:Bill Drake has joined Bill Drake:Hi, sorry for late arrival, mulltiple calls and schedule implosion Marika Konings:an update on the GNSO Review is also tentatively scheduled for Sunday afternoon (14.30 - 15.15) Marika Konings:as part of the GNSO weekend working session Marika Konings:From the staff side we would also like to go through the consolidated version to see if there are any additions from our side, if that is welcomed. Marika Konings:staff = Mary and I ;-) Avri Doria:it can't conflict with any CWG or CCWG Marika Konings:The GNSO related schedule is expected to be shared shortly Bill Drake:Mornings are all programmed too Mary Wong:There will be several GNSO WG meetings on Weds; and an SO/AC High Interest Topic session on Mon afternoon Mary Wong:(Not taking into account the CWG/CCWG sessions) Larisa Gurnick:What about Sunday morning? Rudi Vansnick:@Chuck: doodle good idea Bill Drake:Doodle fine but really need to see a draft scheduel Mary Wong:GNSO Sunday sessions likely start at 9, if that helps Marika Konings:I believe there is a CSG session on Sunday morning Marika Konings:DNS Women's b-fast is usually Monday morning Avri Doria:early might be filled (730) might have to move to early early (6) Bill Drake:why not start midnight meetings Avri Doria:ok Mary Wong:Not sure if they will have one but CSG usually does a breakfast meeting on Constituency Day Bill Drake:Not for those of us who do the Fellows thing Larisa Gurnick:Staff will launch a Doodle as suggested Chuck Gomes:Thanks everyone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: