<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Good catch Stéphane. This proves that we’re not as often look into our
basic docs as needed.</DIV>
<DIV>A review is definitely needed here.<BR><BR>Best
regards<BR><BR>Wolf-Ulrich<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=svg@milathan.com
href="mailto:svg@milathan.com">Stephane Van Gelder</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, June 11, 2014 10:07 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=marika.konings@icann.org
href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org">Marika Konings</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=michele@blacknight.com
href="mailto:michele@blacknight.com">Michele Neylon - Blacknight</A> ; <A
title=jbladel@godaddy.com href="mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com">James M. Bladel</A>
; <A title=avri@acm.org href="mailto:avri@acm.org">Avri Doria</A> ; <A
title=gnso-review-dt@icann.org
href="mailto:gnso-review-dt@icann.org">gnso-review-dt@icann.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment
Questions</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV dir=ltr>Thanks Marika, very useful.
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It's no surprise that there is no such provision for the CSG, as that group
delegates this sort of thing to its constituencies.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I am however surprised that the ISP and the IPC don't have such a
provision. Is there any way of asking them just to make sure, rather than just
relying on their charters?</DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Stéphane Van Gelder<BR>Chairman and Managing
Director/Fondateur<BR><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: arial">Milathan LTD</SPAN>
<DIV>"Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice"<FONT face=arial><BR></FONT><BR>T
(FR): <A style="COLOR: rgb(17,85,204)" value="+33620405589">+33 (0)6 20 40 55
89</A><BR>T (UK): <A style="COLOR: rgb(17,85,204)" value="+447583457053">+44
(0)7583 457053</A><BR>Skype: SVANGELDER<BR><A style="COLOR: rgb(17,85,204)"
href="http://www.stephanevangelder.com/" target=_blank>www.Milathan.com</A>
<DIV>----------------<BR>Discover The Milathan Post on <A
href="http://post.milathan.com"
target=_blank>http://post.milathan.com</A></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On 11 June 2014 10:10, Marika Konings <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org"
target=_blank>marika.konings@icann.org</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)">Having
looked at the different SG/C charters, I have found the following provisions
that deal with membership/voting in more than one SG/C:</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)"><B>RySG
</B>(see <A
href="http://www.gtldregistries.org/sites/gtldregistries.org/files/Charter_of_the_gTLD_Registries_Stakeholder_Group.pdf"
target=_blank>http://www.gtldregistries.org/sites/gtldregistries.org/files/Charter_of_the_gTLD_Registries_Stakeholder_Group.pdf</A>)
</DIV>
<DIV>
<UL style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif">
<LI><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-STYLE: normal">A
Registry that is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership with, or
affiliated with any entity that votes in another stakeholder group or
constituency in either house of the GNSO is not eligible for voting
membership in the RySG. Any question regarding eligibility or exceptions
shall be determined by a vote of the RySG.</SPAN> </LI></UL>
<P
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); MARGIN: 0px"><B>RrSG
</B>(current charter does not appear to address this issue, but it is covered
in the revised charter that is currently posted for public comment, see <A
href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-rrsg-charter-redline-30may14-en.pdf"
target=_blank>http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-rrsg-charter-redline-30may14-en.pdf</A>)</P>
<P style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif; MARGIN: 0px"></P>
<UL>
<LI><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-STYLE: normal">Potential
Conflicts with another Stakeholder Group (SG) </SPAN></LI></UL>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<P style="MARGIN: 0px">If a Member serves as a registrar with no
unaffiliated third-party registrants, or is under common ownership with an
entity that in the last 12 months: has voted in another ICANN SG or any
Constituency of another SG; or holds a signed Registry contract with ICANN
that includes an exemption from the Registry Operator Code of Conduct
(Specification 9 of the 2013 standard registry contract) that prohibits a
Registry to directly or indirectly show any preference or provide any
special consideration to any registrar with respect to operational access to
registry systems and related registry services, unless comparable
opportunities to qualify for such preferences or considerations are made
available to all registrars on substantially similar terms and subject to
substantially similar conditions; then their Registered or Non-Registered
representatives shall not be eligible to hold office in the RrSG for the
Executive Committee, NomCom, or GNSO, or any other future electable RrSG
position. In addition, a Voting Member cannot have a representative who is
also a voting member or represents a voting member in another SG.
</P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<P style="MARGIN: 0px">Any disagreement regarding whether an individual is
eligible to hold office shall be decided by a majority vote of the RrSG.
</P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); MARGIN: 0px"> </P>
<P
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); MARGIN: 0px"><B>NPOC
</B>(see current charter at <A
href="https://community.icann.org/display/NPOCC/Charter"
target=_blank>https://community.icann.org/display/NPOCC/Charter</A>) </P>
<UL style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif">
<LI><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-STYLE: normal">
<H2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><FONT size=3>Committee Structure and
Officer Requirements - </FONT></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: medium; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">2.2 Eligibility</SPAN></H2>
<H2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">Sections 2.2 through
2.10 provide rules and requirements for all NPOC leadership positions
elected by the membership and, as such, apply to the Chair, Vice-Chair,
Secretariat, and Chairs of the Membership, Policy, and Communication
Committees.</SPAN></H2>
<DIV>
<P>To be eligible for a committee officer position, candidates must:</P>
<P>2.2.1 Have been his/her organization’s representative of record, in good
standing, for a period of at least six (6) months;</P>
<P>2.2.2 Not already hold a committee leadership position;</P>
<P>2.2.3 Not be currently serving as a GNSO Council Member; and</P>
<P>2.2.4 Not be NPOC Chair if serving on the ICANN Nominating Committee, as
an officer of another ICANN constituency or as an officer of the At-Large
Advisory Committee (ALAC).</P></DIV></SPAN></LI></UL>
<P
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); MARGIN: 0px"><B>NCUC</B>
(see current charter at <A href="http://www.ncuc.org/governance/bylaws"
target=_blank>http://www.ncuc.org/governance/bylaws</A>/)</P>
<UL style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif">
<LI><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-STYLE: normal">B.
Ineligible organizations. The membership of the NCUC specifically
excludes:</SPAN> </LI></UL>
<P style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); MARGIN: 0px"></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<P>1.
Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold government office
and/or elect government officials</P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<P>2.
Commercial organizations and associations of or for the benefit of
commercial entities (even if they are non-profit in form)</P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<P>3.
Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU with ICANN, or are
represented in ICANN through another Supporting Organization</P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif">
<P><SPAN style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><B>NCSG</B> (see current charter at
</SPAN><A style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"
href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf"
target=_blank>http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf</A><SPAN
style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">) </SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"></P>
<UL>
<LI><SPAN
style="TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-STYLE: normal"><SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: 0.1pt">2.2.1. </SPAN><U>Ineligible <SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: 1.2pt"> </SPAN>organizations.</U></SPAN>
</LI></UL>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<P style="MARGIN-TOP: 3.3pt"><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>The<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.3pt"> </SPAN>membership<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.3pt"> </SPAN>of<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.3pt"> </SPAN>the<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.3pt"> </SPAN>NCSG<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.3pt"> </SPAN>specifically<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.3pt"> </SPAN>excludes:</FONT> </P>
<P
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 13.9pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 39.85pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm"><FONT
size=3 face=Calibri>1.<SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal"> </SPAN>Political<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.3pt"> </SPAN>organizations<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>whose<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>primary<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>purpose<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>is<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>to<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>hold<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>government<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>office and/or<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.4pt"> </SPAN>elect<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.35pt"> </SPAN>government<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.35pt"> </SPAN>officials;</FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 44.15pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm"><FONT size=3
face=Calibri>2. Commercial<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.3pt"> </SPAN>organizations<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>and<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>associations<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.3pt"> </SPAN>that<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>advocate<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>for<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.3pt"> </SPAN>the<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.05pt">benefit</SPAN><SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>of<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: 1.1pt"> </SPAN>commercial<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -1.25pt"> </SPAN>entities<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -1.25pt"> </SPAN>(even<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -1.25pt"> </SPAN>if<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -1.25pt"> </SPAN>they<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -1.25pt"> </SPAN>are<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -1.25pt"> </SPAN>non-­-profit<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -1.25pt"> </SPAN>in<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -1.2pt"> </SPAN>form);</FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 49.2pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm"><FONT size=3
face=Calibri>3. Organizations<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>that<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>are<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>represented<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.2pt"> </SPAN>in<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>ICANN<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>through<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.2pt"> </SPAN>another<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>Supporting Organization<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>specified<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>in<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.2pt"> </SPAN>the<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>ICANN<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.2pt"> </SPAN>Bylaws<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>or<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.2pt"> </SPAN>GNSO<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>Stakeholder<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>Group;</FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 16.75pt"><FONT size=3
face=Calibri>4. <SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.05pt">Organizations</SPAN><SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.3pt"> </SPAN>that<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>provide<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.35pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.05pt">services</SPAN><SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>under<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>contract<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.3pt"> </SPAN>or<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>MoU<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.3pt"> </SPAN>with<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.25pt"> </SPAN>ICANN;</FONT></P>
<P
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 13.9pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 21.05pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm"><FONT
size=3 face=Calibri>5.<SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal"> </SPAN>Government<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.35pt"> </SPAN>organizations<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.35pt"> </SPAN>or<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.3pt"> </SPAN>government<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.35pt"> </SPAN>departments<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.35pt"> </SPAN>whether<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.3pt"> </SPAN>local,<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.35pt"> </SPAN>regional or<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.3pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.05pt">national;</SPAN><SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.3pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.05pt">and</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P style="LINE-HEIGHT: 13.9pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 20.3pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm"><FONT
size=3 face=Calibri>6.<SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal">
</SPAN>Intergovernmental<SPAN style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.35pt">
</SPAN>organizations<SPAN style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.35pt"> </SPAN>whose<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.35pt"> </SPAN>membership<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.35pt"> </SPAN>primarily<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.35pt"> </SPAN>includes<SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.35pt"> </SPAN>nation <SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.05pt">states.</SPAN></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<P style="LINE-HEIGHT: 13.9pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 20.3pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0cm"><FONT
face=Calibri><SPAN style="LETTER-SPACING: -0.05pt"><FONT size=3><B>ISPCP</B>
(see current charter at </FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT size=3 face=Calibri><A
href="https://community.icann.org/x/EgWpAQ"
target=_blank>https://community.icann.org/x/EgWpAQ</A>) </FONT></P>
<UL>
<LI><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 16px; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: cambria; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-STYLE: normal"><FONT
size=3 face=Calibri>No specific provision found</FONT></SPAN></LI></UL></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-STYLE: normal"><B>IPC
</B></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-STYLE: normal">(see
current charter at </SPAN><A href="http://www.ipconstituency.org/bylaws"
target=_blank>http://www.ipconstituency.org/bylaws</A>/) </DIV>
<UL>
<LI>No specific provision found</LI></UL>
<DIV><B>BC </B>(see current charter at <A
href="http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm"
target=_blank>http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm</A>) </DIV>
<UL>
<LI>Membership criteria: 3.3.2 To avoid conflicts of interest this excludes:
not for profit entities excepting trade associations representing for profit
entities; entities whose prime business is a registry, registry operator,
prospective registry, registrar, reseller, or otherwise related to domain
name supply, or similar; other groups whose interests may not be aligned
with business users described in Article 3.1. Trade associations for whom a
minority of members may belong to or could belong to any of the other ICANN
constituencies are not excluded from BC membership.</LI></UL>
<DIV><B>CSG</B> (see current charter at <A
href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/csg-charter-01nov10-en.pdf"
target=_blank>http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/csg-charter-01nov10-en.pdf</A>)
</DIV>
<UL>
<LI>No specific provision found</LI></UL>
<DIV>Obviously I may have missed something, so please feel free to correct or
add to this information, but in short it looks like some SG/C deal with this
issue through the membership or officer eligibility criteria while others look
more specifically at who is eligible to vote while some do not appear to have
any specific provisions in place. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Marika</DIV></DIV></DIV><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; COLOR: black; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; TEXT-ALIGN: left; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in">
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From: </SPAN>Stephane Van Gelder <<A
href="mailto:svg@milathan.com"
target=_blank>svg@milathan.com</A>><BR></DIV><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Date: </SPAN>Tuesday 10 June 2014 23:58<BR><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To: </SPAN>Michele Neylon - Blacknight <<A
href="mailto:michele@blacknight.com"
target=_blank>michele@blacknight.com</A>><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc: </SPAN>"James M. Bladel" <<A
href="mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com" target=_blank>jbladel@godaddy.com</A>>,
Avri Doria <<A href="mailto:avri@acm.org"
target=_blank>avri@acm.org</A>>, "<A href="mailto:gnso-review-dt@icann.org"
target=_blank>gnso-review-dt@icann.org</A>" <<A
href="mailto:gnso-review-dt@icann.org"
target=_blank>gnso-review-dt@icann.org</A>>
<DIV>
<DIV class=h5><BR><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject: </SPAN>Re:
[gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment
Questions<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=h5>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>I don't believe this is an issue as I think all SGs in the CPH
and all constituencies in the NCPH have rules that prohibit a voting member
from being a voting member of another group in the GNSO.
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Can staff perhaps enlighten us on this?</DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Stéphane Van Gelder<BR>Chairman and Managing
Director/Fondateur<BR><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: arial">Milathan LTD</SPAN>
<DIV>"Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice"<FONT
face=arial><BR></FONT><BR>T (FR): <A style="COLOR: rgb(17,85,204)"
value="+33620405589">+33 (0)6 20 40 55 89</A><BR>T (UK): <A
style="COLOR: rgb(17,85,204)" value="+447583457053">+44 (0)7583
457053</A><BR>Skype: SVANGELDER<BR><A style="COLOR: rgb(17,85,204)"
href="http://www.stephanevangelder.com/" target=_blank>www.Milathan.com</A>
<DIV>----------------<BR>Discover The Milathan Post on <A
href="http://post.milathan.com"
target=_blank>http://post.milathan.com</A></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On 10 June 2014 19:48, Michele Neylon - Blacknight
<SPAN dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:michele@blacknight.com"
target=_blank>michele@blacknight.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><BR>It's
something that probably needs to be addressed if it hasn't been
already.<BR><BR>I'd be quite disturbed if a single company was voting in
multiple places on policies etc., that benefited them<BR><BR>I don't have an
issue with companies / organisations having membership (of some kind) in
multiple groups. If, for example, we were to start selling more transit
etc., then we'd probably want to follow the ISPs more closely. But voting is
a different matter.<BR><BR>Regards<BR><BR>Michele<BR><BR>--<BR>Mr Michele
Neylon<BR>Blacknight Solutions<BR>Hosting & Colocation, Domains<BR><A
href="http://www.blacknight.co/"
target=_blank>http://www.blacknight.co/</A><BR><A
href="http://blog.blacknight.com/"
target=_blank>http://blog.blacknight.com/</A><BR><A
href="http://www.technology.ie/"
target=_blank>http://www.technology.ie/</A><BR>Intl. <A
href="tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072" target=_blank
value="+353599183072">+353 (0) 59 9183072</A><BR>Direct Dial: <A
href="tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090" target=_blank
value="+353599183090">+353 (0)59 9183090</A><BR>Twitter: <A
href="http://twitter.com/mneylon"
target=_blank>http://twitter.com/mneylon</A><BR>-------------------------------<BR>Blacknight
Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
Park,Sleaty<BR>Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.:
370845<BR>
<DIV><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: <A
href="mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org"
target=_blank>owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org</A> [mailto:<A
href="mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org"
target=_blank>owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org</A>] On Behalf Of James M.
Bladel<BR>Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:44 PM<BR>To: Avri Doria; <A
href="mailto:gnso-review-dt@icann.org"
target=_blank>gnso-review-dt@icann.org</A><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment
Questions<BR><BR><BR>I know some structures (like the RrSG) have either
adopted changes to their bylaws, or are working to, that would prohibit
members from voting if they are voting members in other SGs. But it is
not clear to me how this is enforced on a community-wide
basis.<BR><BR>J.<BR><BR><BR>On 6/10/14, 12:28 , "Avri Doria" <<A
href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target=_blank>avri@acm.org</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR>><BR>>Hi,<BR>><BR>>I thought there was already a
rule somewhere in the SIC documents about<BR>>being able to vote in only
one SG. Of course a company with many<BR>>divisions could find a
way to be a member of several. Or could have<BR>>staff members join
multiple Constituencies or SGs as individuals.<BR>><BR>>But how would
one prevent that? Of course one way to start is the<BR>>requirement
that all SGs list all of their members on a public web site.<BR>> I think
wee already have that requirement, somewhere, but I am not<BR>>sure it is
followed by all with equal fervor.<BR>><BR>>Perhaps we should also
have a question about the degree to which the<BR>>various SGs and Cs
follow SIC rules.<BR>><BR>>avri<BR>><BR>><BR>>On 10-Jun-14
19:07, Volker Greimann wrote:<BR>>><BR>>> One further issue the
DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to<BR>>> devise policies
that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of<BR>>> one entity
within multiple constituencies.<BR>>> Without such policy one could
argue that there is a risk for the<BR>>> entire structure of ICANN
being hollowed out or dominated by<BR>>> specialized interest groups
that happen to fit more than one constituency.<BR>>><BR>>> This
is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational<BR>>>
issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an
entity.<BR>>><BR>>> Best,<BR>>><BR>>>
Volker<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> Am <A
href="tel:06.06.2014%2023" target=_blank value="+33606201423">06.06.2014
23</A>:44, schrieb Ron Andruff:<BR>>>> Dear Chuck, James and
all,<BR>>>><BR>>>> As I catch up on this string reading
through the posts since my last<BR>>>>one I am seeing a lot
of parsing of words rather than an<BR>>>>understanding of
what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to<BR>>>>the
fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have
now<BR>>>>appears to be serving only two groups - Registries
and Registrars -<BR>>>>within all of ICANN. Those of us who
were not contracted parties<BR>>>>were jammed together
at an 11th hour meeting similar to how<BR>>>>Yugoslavia
was created post WWII, and we all know what happened
to<BR>>>>that mashup...<BR>>>><BR>>>> If
there is commonality (and here I take issue with your
comment<BR>>>> James, re:<BR>>>> the BC and IPC overlap,
because that is NOT the case in our view) it<BR>>>> is commonality
around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's<BR>>>>
interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the
various<BR>>>> bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further
from one another<BR>>>> in their interests and
actions.<BR>>>><BR>>>> So we are saying -- as members of
this WP -- the discord within the<BR>>>> NCPH is palpable. It
is not dislike of each other, rather different<BR>>>> views as
constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure
a<BR>>>> serious review to see if there are other ways to structure
the<BR>>>> organization so that it better serves the institution
and likewise<BR>>>> the community.<BR>>>><BR>>>>
While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over
the<BR>>>>years, the few positive examples pale in comparison
to all of the<BR>>>>other issues, big and small, that
have failed more often than not<BR>>>>locked in stalemates,
e.g.<BR>>>> Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new
registries<BR>>>>handpicking even trademarked names and
putting them into their own<BR>>>>registrar to sell for
$1000's as premium names... Was that the<BR>>>>intended
result the Board thought would happen when they took
that<BR>>>>over from the GNSO WG or was that just an
outcome of a failure of<BR>>>>the GNSO to fulfill its
mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I<BR>>>>do
believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI
will<BR>>>>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<BR>>>>happens when the GNSO doesn't work
as it could.<BR>>>><BR>>>> In my view, we should stop
parsing words with explanations and get<BR>>>> on with a full - 360
degree - review of the entire GNSO...<BR>>>> stakeholder groups,
houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants<BR>>>>
(constituencies, communities, brands, geos)
etc.<BR>>>><BR>>>> We need new ideas to build a structure
that meets today's and<BR>>>> tomorrow's (as far as we can
anticipate them) needs. The survey<BR>>>> respondents will
give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We<BR>>>> just
have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks
all<BR>>>> of these critical
questions.<BR>>>><BR>>>> A fresh idea for selecting Board
members (as that discussion has<BR>>>>also come up on
this thread) is needed if we want to populate the<BR>>>>ICANN
Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When
I<BR>>>>consider how much vetting prospective Board members
go through via<BR>>>>the Nom Com (as a result of my
participation in 2013 and again this<BR>>>>year) I am amazed and
appalled at how very little vetting those<BR>>>>Board
members that come through the SG's get...<BR>>>> Why would the
community choose such an uneven and
illogical<BR>>>>methodology?<BR>>>> Given an opportunity
to utilize a better process, I am sure the<BR>>>>community
would seize on it for all the good reasons one
can<BR>>>>imagine. So what quality of Board would
we get if each<BR>>>>constituency/stakeholder group were to
put forward three candidates<BR>>>>for the Nom Com to vet and
select one from?<BR>>>> Would<BR>>>> that raise the
bar? Would such a vetting process remove from
the<BR>>>>Board those whose first interest may not be the
good of ICANN? Radical, yes.<BR>>>> Workable, maybe. Raise
the quality of the ICANN Board of
Directors,<BR>>>>absolutely...<BR>>>><BR>>>>
Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we
hope<BR>>>>to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the
bottom up.<BR>>>>Otherwise, we will see change coming
from the top down, whether we<BR>>>>like it or not. And
then what?<BR>>>><BR>>>> Kind
regards,<BR>>>><BR>>>>
RA<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> Ron
Andruff<BR>>>> dotSport LLC<BR>>>> <A
href="http://www.lifedotsport.com"
target=_blank>www.lifedotsport.com</A><BR>>>><BR>>>>
-----Original Message-----<BR>>>> From: <A
href="mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org"
target=_blank>owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org</A><BR>>>> [mailto:<A
href="mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org"
target=_blank>owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org</A>]<BR>>>> On Behalf
Of Avri Doria<BR>>>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014
16:11<BR>>>> Cc: <A href="mailto:ntfy-gnso-review-dt@icann.org"
target=_blank>ntfy-gnso-review-dt@icann.org</A><BR>>>> Subject: Re:
[gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment<BR>>>>
Questions<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck
wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>>>> Can you give me an example
where the House structure has caused a<BR>>>>>> problem with
regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's<BR>>>>>>
primary role?<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>> The inability of
the NCPH to perform any of it functions without<BR>>>>> months
of garbage processing. It just does not work. We
have<BR>>>>> great trouble electing a vice-chair and we have
failed completely<BR>>>>> in electing a Board member this
time.<BR>>>><BR>>>> [Chuck Gomes] I don't think
this<BR>>>>> has impacted policy development but it is still a
very good point of<BR>>>>> an issue that needs to be dealt
with. I would like to think (maybe<BR>>>>> naively)
that this should be able to be solved within the
existing<BR>>>>> structure. If the two houses cannot
resolve it among themselves,<BR>>>>> then maybe it should be
discussed by the full Council.<BR>>>> It can't be. If
anything it has gotten worse over the three years<BR>>>> and gets
worse all the time.<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<BR>>>>other house is going to
give us advice on how to get along. Not<BR>>>>too
likely.<BR>>>> In all my years of studying counseling and group
dynamics that has<BR>>>>never been a workable
formula.<BR>>>><BR>>>> Kind of like a one neighbor trying
to fix the marital problems of<BR>>>> their
neighbors.<BR>>>><BR>>>> And before you suggest we go to a
counselor, we did. And indeed<BR>>>>when it gets too
tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a<BR>>>>compromise,
but that is not way to live.<BR>>>><BR>>>>>
Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it
is<BR>>>>> obvious that the differences inside the NCPH will
keep use from<BR>>>>> ever being able to elect a Chair from our
side of the GNSO. That<BR>>>>> is a kind of dysfunction
that rots most organizations sooner or
later.<BR>>>><BR>>>> [Chuck<BR>>>>>
Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The
reality<BR>>>>> is that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate
in the last round.<BR>>>>> If you think it is impossible, maybe
the Council should explore<BR>>>>> ways to rotate the position
among the two houses. I haven't<BR>>>>> discussed this
with others in the CPH but I personally would be<BR>>>>> fine
with that as long as the candidates have good leadership<BR>>>>>
skills and are able to commit the time.<BR>>>> Yeah maybe.
But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH<BR>>>>
people tell me this that they realized there was no way we
could<BR>>>> ever put up a candidate that could win because our
vote would always<BR>>>> split.<BR>>>> Though the idea of
us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather<BR>>>>
funny.<BR>>>> Pathetic humor, but
funny.<BR>>>><BR>>>>>> Is the adversarial problem
you observed in the Council or the GNSO<BR>>>>>> in
general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that
directly.<BR>>>> On council we can actually sometime agree on some
issues. We mostly<BR>>>>all know how to behave
professionally in council most of the
time.<BR>>>><BR>>>>> The Council is not sperate form
the GNSO. The dysfunction is in<BR>>>>> both on the NCPH
side.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Additionally the house
structure makes it impossible to ever<BR>>>>> consider adding
new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space,<BR>>>>> that
looks like a possible limitation.<BR>>>><BR>>>> [Chuck
Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly<BR>>>>> be complicated but I
don't think it should be impossible.<BR>>>> That would imbalance
the house which would be complicated.<BR>>>> Whereas without house,
we could just add some more council members.<BR>>>>> But I am
not suggesting we add SGs at this point in
time.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> What I am arguing for is
gathering information. Maybe my<BR>>>>> perception is mine
alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in<BR>>>>>
gathering information strikes me as sort of problematic,
though.<BR>>>><BR>>>> [Chuck Gomes]<BR>>>>> As
I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to
gathering<BR>>>>> the information but just question whether we
should do it in this<BR>>>>> exercise, i.e., the
timing.<BR>>>> I do not understand the timing issue. This is
the time. next time<BR>>>> is in 3 years. There is one
survey, one chance for the SIC to find<BR>>>> out what needs to be
done.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>> If everything is
as wonderful as you think it is, asking the<BR>>>>> questions
won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is<BR>>>>>
wonderful and I am wrong.<BR>>>><BR>>>> [Chuck Gomes] If
the group wants to ask<BR>>>>> questions about structure, I
won't fight. And I didn't say<BR>>>>> everything is
wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I
am<BR>>>>> not convinced that is largely a factor of
structure.<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,<BR>>>> but a critical
one.<BR>>>> You either accentuate the differences with sets of
oppositions, or<BR>>>> you put together a structure that allows
many different alliances to<BR>>>> form, with these alliance
changing over time. Because of the strict<BR>>>> diremption
in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus<BR>>>> SG,
alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days
in<BR>>>> the council my last time, with this time, the alliance
making was<BR>>>> far more dynamic in the
past.<BR>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>> As I say, at
this point I am advocate gathering
info.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> But yes, I beleive we could
eliminate the houses and keep almost<BR>>>>> everything else the
same, rather simply, all we would need to do is<BR>>>>> figure
out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for
the<BR>>>>> NCPH it would remove a
limitation.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> As for electing the
Board, I consider it a real democracy problem<BR>>>>> that one
person is elected by 8 people, while the other is
elected<BR>>>>> by<BR>>>>> 5
people.<BR>>>><BR>>>> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this
for me.<BR>>>><BR>>>> (: that is far too few people for a
voting population. The idea<BR>>>>that one board seat
is elected by a group of 7 voters in one<BR>>>>instance and
by<BR>>>> 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21
voters is small<BR>>>>enough. I would actually like to
see us take a page out of the<BR>>>>AT-Large book and
add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit<BR>>>>more
depth.<BR>>>> But I know that is a structural change too far.
The point is a<BR>>>>large more diverse representative
voting populations makes for<BR>>>>better democracy, aka
it is better for accountability<BR>>>><BR>>>>>
Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real
limitation<BR>>>>> on the community's influence on the
GNSO.<BR>>>> BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the
GNSO committee<BR>>>> (which i was one but dissented from) that
came up with this<BR>>>> mishigas*.<BR>>>> They wanted to
decrease the influence of the NCAs.<BR>>>><BR>>>> [Chuck
Gomes] I need some<BR>>>>> help understanding this. BTW,
the homeless, voteless NCA is<BR>>>>> providing some excellent
service for the GNSO in leading this group<BR>>>>> and
representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that
is<BR>>>>> much more valuable than any vote would
be.<BR>>>> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last
meeting. And she<BR>>>>could do just as well if she had
a vote. Many people do good jobs<BR>>>>in the council
without needing to give up their vote to do so.<BR>>>>Jonathan
provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he
retains<BR>>>>his vote. The two issues are not
related. The community selects<BR>>>>three people to
contribute to the decisions making. Voting is
part<BR>>>>of that.<BR>>>><BR>>>> Would it make
sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage<BR>>>>
teams?<BR>>>> We would be contributing just as
much.<BR>>>><BR>>>> avri<BR>>>><BR>>>> *
yiddish word for a special kind of
craziness<BR>>>><BR>>><BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>