<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
<meta charset="utf-8">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"
id="docs-internal-guid-6543a2b8-1a7c-0076-5db8-76a7b2a0b27f"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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.</span></p>
<br>
<br>
<ul style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;">
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Rec
22 seems too limited. Shouldn’t the GNSO council also
concern itself with the subject having been adequately
covered. More discussion below.</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<ul style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;">
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Rec
26 seems to include the issue that the rules for new
constituencies have not been followed.</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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?</span></p>
<br>
<ul style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;">
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Page
13</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
72pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#783f04;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Complexity
deters newcomers</span><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Is
the report assuming that complexity can be removed, or that it
be mitigated by better explanations.</span></p>
<br>
<ul style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;">
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Page
14 </span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
72pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#783f04;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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.</span></p>
<br>
<br>
<ul style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;">
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Page
40</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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? </span></p>
<br>
<br>
<ul style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;">
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Page
43, </span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">The
description of the Policy & Implementation team work seems
incomplete and dated. Might be worth giving a timestamp for
when that description was made.</span></p>
<br>
<br>
<ul style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;">
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Page
50</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
72pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#783f04;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">The
average length of a PDP is between 2 and 3 years</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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.</span></p>
<br>
<ul style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;">
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Page
71</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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.</span></p>
<br>
<ul style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;">
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Page
72 </span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
72pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#783f04;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">We
acknowledge that the Board is the peak governing body of ICANN,
so it would be inappropriate to limit its authority</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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?</span></p>
<br>
<ul style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;">
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Page
81</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
72pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#783f04;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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?</span></p>
<br>
<ul style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;">
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Page
82</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
72pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#783f04;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">and
took no action on the Consumer Constituency as it was still
being worked on</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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. </span></p>
<br>
<ul style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;">
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Page
83</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">In
the discussion of the Cybercafe constituency applications
Westlake avoids several salient facts:</span></p>
<br>
<ul style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;">
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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.</span></p>
</li>
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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.</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Again
this makes the NCSG look like it did some inappropriate when it
was following procedures and its own Board approved charter. </span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Does
Westlake recommend that:</span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;">
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">It
is ok to put commercial constituencies in the NCSG and non
commercial constituencies in the CSG?</span></p>
</li>
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">It
is ok to create constituencies with overlapping mandates on
the same SG?</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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?</span></p>
<br>
<ul style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;">
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Page
85</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">What
evidence is there to substantiate:</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
72pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#783f04;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">-
Less ‘pure’ or altruistic motives, such as protecting one’s own
position, status in the GNSO/ICANN community (or with an
employer), or,</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
72pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#783f04;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">−
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.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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.</span></p>
<br>
<ul style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;">
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Page
91</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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.</span></p>
<br>
<ul style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;">
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Page
113</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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.</span></p>
<br>
<ul style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;">
<li dir="ltr"
style="list-style-type:disc;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Page
116</span></p>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left:
36pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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. </span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">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.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Avri
Doria<br>
<br>
</span></p>
<meta charset="utf-8">
</body>
</html>