<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>Thanks Stephane. Couldn't have said it better myself!</div><div><br></div><div>And I thank Chulk for being as respectful as he always is and judicious, as he always is. Good that that was called out if someone may have been concerned. </div><div><br></div><div>Chuck and I share a healthy respect for each other and consider ourselves friends, but the bigger connection is our desire to grow ICANN in a sustainable manner.</div><div><br></div><div>To be clear, somewhere in the what we are all saying lays the answer. We just need to frame relevant questions to elicit responses that serve a sustainable ICANN. </div><div><br></div><div>Kind regards,</div><div><br></div><div>RA</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:75%;color:#575757">Ron Andruff<br>www.lifedotsport.com </div></div> <br><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Stephane Van Gelder <svg@milathan.com> <br>Date: 06/09/2014 17:50 (GMT-05:00) <br>To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> <br>Cc: Ron Andruff <ra@dotsportllc.com>,gnso-review-dt@icann.org <br>Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions <br> <br><br>No concerns on the back and forth between Ron and you Chuck, especially<br>since many others such as Volker, James, Avri and myself have also weighed<br>in ;)<br><br>I do agree with you that associating WG failure with GNSO structure issues<br>is misguided. I do not however think that's what Ron is saying, but I will<br>not put words into his mouth and let him correct my assumption if it is<br>false.<br><br>In any case, I will repeat what I have already said: questions about<br>structure should be included in the 360, without any expectations of what<br>answers they might elicit. Let the review respondents say what they want to<br>say. Our job here in this group is to make sure they have an opportunity to<br>say what they want to say.<br><br>Thanks,<br><br>Stéphane Van Gelder<br>Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur<br>Milathan LTD<br>"Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice"<br><br>T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89<br>T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053<br>Skype: SVANGELDER<br>www.Milathan.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/><br>----------------<br>Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com<br><br><br>On 9 June 2014 21:57, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:<br><br>> Ron,<br>><br>><br>><br>> Let me repeat what I have said already, if most of the people in this<br>> group wants to add questions regarding structure, I am fine with that. I<br>> have said why I opposed that but I am just one person with no more weight<br>> than anyone else.<br>><br>><br>><br>> The reason I asked for a list of failures is because I am not convinced<br>> that "The list of failed WG's is a long one" unless you and I have<br>> different definitions of failure, which is possible. So it would really<br>> helped me if you tell me which ones you think were failures.<br>><br>><br>><br>> I do not consider the VI WG a failure. One problem is that the Board gave<br>> an unrealistic time limit. But even if they had more time, I am not<br>> convinced that a consensus could have been reached.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Also, I don't see how failed WGs would be attributable to GNSO structure,<br>> so please help me understand your thinking in that regard.<br>><br>><br>><br>> I would like to think that you do not you disagree with ICANN Core Value<br>> 5? "5. Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to<br>> promote and sustain a competitive environment."<br>><br>><br>><br>> I don't understand this: "In the case of the NCPH, there are 5 groups, so<br>> that NCA vote doesn't have much bearing at all. " The number of<br>> constituencies should have nothing to do with it. The current structure<br>> gives the NCSG and CSG the same number of votes, so the NCA vote would<br>> matter.<br>><br>><br>><br>> For those of you who may be concerned about the back and forth between Ron<br>> & I, let me assure you that I have the utmost respect for Ron and I<br>> consider him a friend. We have worked together in the ICANN world for a<br>> long time.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Chuck<br>><br>><br>><br>> *From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:ra@dotsportllc.com]<br>> *Sent:* Monday, June 09, 2014 12:54 PM<br>> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt@icann.org<br>><br>> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment<br>> Questions<br>><br>><br>><br>> Chuck,<br>><br>><br>><br>> Please see my comments in red below.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Kind regards,<br>><br>><br>><br>> RA<br>><br>><br>><br>> Ron Andruff<br>><br>> dotSport LLC<br>><br>> www.lifedotsport.com<br>><br>><br>><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]<br>> Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2014 09:36<br>> To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt@icann.org<br>> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions<br>><br>><br>><br>> Ron,<br>><br>><br>><br>> Please provide a list of "the other issues, big and small, that have<br>> failed more often than not locked in stalemates" if we are going to<br>> continue this discussion. That can be done on this list or off list. I<br>> think that Stephane is correct that the issue is whether or not to include<br>> questions related to structure at this time and not to debate whether<br>> structure is a problem or not. The reason I entered into the discussion is<br>> because others stated that it was a problem. RA: The list of failed WG's<br>> is a long one Chuck, as you know. We don't need a list of them to aid us<br>> in what we are trying to do here. The issue here is to include questions<br>> for respondents to help everyone understand if there is a structural<br>> problem or not. Several of us in the NCPH have indicated that we feel<br>> there is and thus would like to see structural questions asked.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Why do you consider vertical integration a failure? The fact that no<br>> consensus was reached doesn't mean the effort failed. It could simply mean<br>> that there was no consensus to be reached. That should not be taken as<br>> failure. RA: Any WG that is removed from finishing its task by the Board<br>> of Directors is a failed WG. Consensus was not the issue. The issue was<br>> that the VI WG was not able to complete its mandate. We are living in a<br>> dream world if we think we should always be able to reach consensus. RA:<br>> I agree with you on this. But I would add that the time may be long<br>> overdue to consider looking at Rough Consensus as a viable option to Full<br>> Consensus (the top 2 of five ICANN levels of consensus). Rough consensus<br>> provides for those who are not in consensus with the larger WG to detail<br>> their arguments to the contrary just as the U.S. Supreme Court Justices do. In<br>> cases where we can't reach consensus, that is a good time to let market<br>> forces work unless security and stability are at risk. RA: Can't agree<br>> with this premise. There is a big gap between reaching consensus and<br>> letting market forces work, but few at ICANN seem to understand that.<br>> Sadly, some may feel that holding out on consensus simply advances the<br>> market forces alternative, which may be more viable to their businesses...<br>><br>><br>><br>> Regarding the GNSO board candidate, has the NCPH candidate been included<br>> in that decision? One of the purposes of putting an NCA into each house<br>> was to break ties. That is a key part of the structural design we have.<br>> The CPH has used this several times where the RySG and RrSG have disagreed;<br>> the NCA broke the tie. RA: So it bears noting that in the case of two<br>> groups in one house the structural design hoped for, works. In the case of<br>> the NCPH, there are 5 groups, so that NCA vote doesn't have much bearing at<br>> all. We need to review this structure.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Chuck<br>><br>><br>><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>><br>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org [<br>> mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org <owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org>]<br>> On Behalf Of Ron Andruff<br>><br>> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 5:45 PM<br>><br>> To: gnso-review-dt@icann.org<br>><br>> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> Dear Chuck, James and all,<br>><br>><br>><br>> As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last one I<br>> am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an understanding of what I<br>> believe Avri and I are trying to bring to the fore. What I am saying is<br>> that the structure we have now appears to be serving only two groups -<br>> Registries and Registrars - within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not<br>> contracted parties were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to<br>> how Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to that<br>> mashup...<br>><br>><br>><br>> If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment James, re:<br>><br>> the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it is<br>> commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's interests,<br>> as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various bodies that make up<br>> the NPCH could not be further from one another in their interests and<br>> actions.<br>><br>><br>><br>> So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the NCPH<br>> is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different views as<br>> constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a serious review<br>> to see if there are other ways to structure the organization so that it<br>> better serves the institution and likewise the community.<br>><br>><br>><br>> While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the years,<br>> the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the other issues,<br>> big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates,<br>> e.g.<br>><br>> Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries handpicking even<br>> trademarked names and putting them into their own registrar to sell for<br>> $1000's as premium names... Was that the intended result the Board thought<br>> would happen when they took that over from the GNSO WG or was that just an<br>> outcome of a failure of the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know<br>> the answer, but I do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of<br>> VI will haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as<br>> conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what happens<br>> when the GNSO doesn't work as it could.<br>><br>><br>><br>> In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get on with<br>> a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... stakeholder groups,<br>> houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants (constituencies,<br>> communities, brands, geos) etc.<br>><br>><br>><br>> We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and tomorrow's<br>> (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey respondents will give<br>> us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We just have to figure out how to<br>> put a survey together that asks all of these critical questions.<br>><br>><br>><br>> A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has also come<br>> up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the ICANN Board with<br>> the most highly-qualified representatives. When I consider how much<br>> vetting prospective Board members go through via the Nom Com (as a result<br>> of my participation in 2013 and again this year) I am amazed and appalled<br>> at how very little vetting those Board members that come through the SG's<br>> get...<br>><br>> Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical methodology?<br>><br>> Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the community<br>> would seize on it for all the good reasons one can imagine. So what<br>> quality of Board would we get if each constituency/stakeholder group were<br>> to put forward three candidates for the Nom Com to vet and select one<br>> from? Would that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from<br>> the Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical,<br>> yes.<br>><br>> Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors,<br>> absolutely...<br>><br>><br>><br>> Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope to<br>> generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. Otherwise, we will<br>> see change coming from the top down, whether we like it or not. And then<br>> what?<br>><br>><br>><br>> Kind regards,<br>><br>><br>><br>> RA<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> Ron Andruff<br>><br>> dotSport LLC<br>><br>> www.lifedotsport.com<br>><br>><br>><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>><br>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org [<br>> mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org <owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org>]<br>><br>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>><br>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11<br>><br>> Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt@icann.org<br>><br>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>><br>><br>><br>> >> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a<br>><br>> >> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's<br>><br>> >> primary role?<br>><br>> >><br>><br>> ><br>><br>> > The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without<br>><br>> > months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have great<br>><br>> > trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in<br>><br>> > electing a Board member this time.<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this<br>><br>> > has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of<br>><br>> > an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe<br>><br>> > naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing<br>><br>> > structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, then<br>><br>> > maybe it should be discussed by the full Council.<br>><br>><br>><br>> It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and<br>> gets worse all the time.<br>><br>><br>><br>> And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the<br>> difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the other<br>> house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not too likely.<br>><br>> In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has never<br>> been a workable formula.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of their<br>> neighbors.<br>><br>><br>><br>> And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed when it<br>> gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but that is<br>> not way to live.<br>><br>><br>><br>> ><br>><br>> > Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious<br>><br>> > that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being<br>><br>> > able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That is a kind of<br>><br>> > dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later.<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> [Chuck<br>><br>> > Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality is<br>><br>> > that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. If<br>><br>> > you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to<br>><br>> > rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't discussed this<br>><br>> > with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as<br>><br>> > long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to<br>><br>> > commit the time.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH people<br>> tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever put up a<br>> candidate that could win because our vote would always split.<br>><br>> Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather funny.<br>><br>> Pathetic humor, but funny.<br>><br>><br>><br>> ><br>><br>> >> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in<br>><br>> >> general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly.<br>><br>><br>><br>> On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly all<br>> know how to behave professionally in council most of the time.<br>><br>><br>><br>> ><br>><br>> > The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in both<br>><br>> > on the NCPH side.<br>><br>> ><br>><br>> > Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider<br>><br>> > adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks<br>><br>> > like a possible limitation.<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly<br>><br>> > be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible.<br>><br>><br>><br>> That would imbalance the house which would be complicated.<br>><br>> Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members.<br>><br>> ><br>><br>> > But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time.<br>><br>> ><br>><br>> > What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my perception<br>><br>> > is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering<br>><br>> > information strikes me as sort of problematic, though.<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> [Chuck Gomes]<br>><br>> > As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering<br>><br>> > the information but just question whether we should do it in this<br>><br>> > exercise, i.e., the timing.<br>><br>><br>><br>> I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time is in<br>> 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out what<br>> needs to be done.<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> ><br>><br>> > If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions<br>><br>> > won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and<br>><br>> > I am wrong.<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask<br>><br>> > questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say everything<br>><br>> > is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am not convinced<br>><br>> > that is largely a factor of structure.<br>><br>><br>><br>> There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key<br>> component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a<br>> critical one.<br>><br>> You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or you put<br>> together a structure that allows many different alliances to form, with<br>> these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict diremption in the<br>> voting structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, alliances are much more<br>> difficult. When I compare the days in the council my last time, with this<br>> time, the alliance making was far more dynamic in the past.<br>><br>><br>><br>> ><br>><br>> ><br>><br>> > As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info.<br>><br>> ><br>><br>> > But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost<br>><br>> > everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is<br>><br>> > figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the<br>><br>> > NCPH it would remove a limitation.<br>><br>> ><br>><br>> > As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that<br>><br>> > one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by<br>><br>> > 5 people.<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me.<br>><br>><br>><br>> (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea that one<br>> board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by<br>><br>> 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small enough.<br>> I would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large book and<br>> add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth.<br>><br>> But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a large more<br>> diverse representative voting populations makes for better democracy, aka<br>> it is better for accountability<br>><br>><br>><br>> ><br>><br>> > Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on<br>><br>> > the community's influence on the GNSO.<br>><br>><br>><br>> BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee (which<br>> i was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*.<br>><br>> They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs.<br>><br>><br>><br>> [Chuck Gomes] I need some<br>><br>> > help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is providing<br>><br>> > some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and<br>><br>> > representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is much<br>><br>> > more valuable than any vote would be.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she could do<br>> just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs in the council<br>> without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan provides great<br>> service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The two issues are not<br></body>