<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 10.00.9200.17296"></HEAD>
<BODY><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I would like to thank Westlake for the latest report
and make the following 5 comments and recommendations.<BR><BR><STRONG>1. Page 14
preamble on structure<BR></STRONG>"<FONT color=#0000ff>Many people commented on
the GNSO’s structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change. We
do not consider that the GNSO’s structure is perfect, or that it cannot be
improved, but, having analysed the issues in some detail, our view is that the
structure of the GNSO is not the main cause of its most pressing
challenges.<BR>In addition, the current structure of the GNSO has been in place
for only about three years</FONT>."<BR>This comment is misleading.<BR>The 2
House structure was implemented in 2008. That is 7 years ago.<BR>Do Westlake
mean the current form of the PDP and Working Groups?<BR>This is
different.<BR><STRONG>Please change the text to
clarify.<BR></STRONG><BR><STRONG>2. The "pressing challenges" and
recommendations 36 - 41.<BR></STRONG>These all focus on diversity.<BR>They
are fine recommendations but NOT ones that addresses the issue of
structure. <STRONG>Please change the text to clarify.</STRONG><BR></FONT><FONT
size=2 face=Arial><BR><STRONG>3.ICANN Board<BR></STRONG>In its resolution of 28
September 2013 the ICANN Board stated:<BR><FONT color=#0000ff>"<STRONG>GNSO
Structure is unlikely</STRONG> to accommodate the anticipated new stream of
stakeholders resulting from the expansion of the TLD space. The GNSO Review will
be an important vehicle for considering and addressing this issue. The unbalance
that is already occurring needs to be addressed by the GNSO Review.</FONT>
”<BR><STRONG>Why is this Board resolution not addressed in the
report?<BR></STRONG><BR>4. Page 14: "<FONT color=#0000ff>Many people commented
on the GNSO’s structure and complexity and argued that these needed to
change</FONT>"<BR><STRONG>Why is the opinion of "<FONT color=#0000ff>many
people</FONT>" not addressed in the report?<BR></STRONG><BR>5. Understanding the
past and the present.<BR>Little attempt to analyse the lack of relevance* today
of the 2 Houses structure has been made.<BR><STRONG>Why is
this?<BR></STRONG>*See below for a snip from the BRG survey
submission</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2 face=Arial><BR>Philip Sheppard</FONT><FONT size=2
face=Arial><BR>---------------------------------------------------------------------<BR><STRONG>EDIT
FROM BRG PAPER AND SURVEY SUBMISSION</STRONG></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma>The 2008 GNSO reform created two Houses within the GNSO: the
Contracted Party House and the Non-Contracted Party House. Put simply there is a
suppliers House and a users House. And those Houses were given equal votes. This
was a change from the GNSO of several separate Constituencies. This created a
4-tier structure.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><?xml:namespace prefix = "o" ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma>The rationale for the 2008 reform was threefold. </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma>a) Separable interests. </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma>There was a belief that the underlying user groups and supplier
groups had separable interests that could be divided into six separable entities
(registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests,
internet service providers, non-commercial interests).</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><o:p><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma>b) Commonality. </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma>The rationale for the two Houses was that suppliers are impacted
economically by policy and may be impacted in the same way: and users are
impacted in a variety of ways by policy and may be impacted in the same way.
</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><o:p><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma>c) Balance between the Houses. </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma>There was a belief that the interests of users and suppliers should
be balanced.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><o:p><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><U><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT
size=3><FONT color=#0000ff>Issues<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></FONT></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma>In 2014, everything has changed. The rationale has changed. Indeed,
the current structure creates new conflicts of interest.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><o:p><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma>a) Separable interests. </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma>While different interests continue, it is no longer true that the
separable interests are accurately reflected by the six separable entities
(registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual property interests,
internet service providers, non-commercial interests). There are two reasons for
this.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 18.0pt"><FONT
color=#0000ff><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Wingdings; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore"><FONT size=3>§</FONT><SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT size=3 face=Tahoma>Conflicting relationships. There
is a complex web of relationships that overlap and conflict within the six
groups. A typical .brand registry may be simultaneously: a Registry, a Business
Constituency member, an Intellectual Property Constituency member, and have a
contractual relationship with other generic registries for back-end
services.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 18.0pt"><FONT
color=#0000ff><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Wingdings; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore"><FONT size=3>§</FONT><SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT size=3 face=Tahoma>What is commercial? The old
division within the users House between commercial and non-commercial is no
longer relevant. Just within the 400 .brand registry applicants, some 15 are
not-for-profit organisations representing some $69 billion in annual turnover.
Two of these are current BRG members. </FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><o:p><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma>b) Commonality. </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma>The commonality assumption was historically questionable.
</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma>The commonality of interests within the old groups has changed.
</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list 18.0pt"><FONT
color=#0000ff><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Wingdings; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore"><FONT size=3>§</FONT><SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT size=3 face=Tahoma>It was <U>never</U> true that
users within each House acted as if they were impacted in the same way by
policy. There has often been disagreement between commercial and non-commercial
users, and between types of non-commercial user. This has been seen most clearly
on issues connected with crime prevention (such as accurate Whois records and a
difference of opinion on the balance of freedom of speech versus crime
prevention). </FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list 18.0pt"><FONT
color=#0000ff><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Wingdings; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore"><FONT size=3>§</FONT><SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT size=3 face=Tahoma>It is <U>no longer</U> true that
Registries are impacted economically by policy in the same way. The 400 .brand
Registries will have a different view on many policy issues to the 800 generic
Registries. This divide will be most clear where there is a choice between the
costs imposed by a policy and the benefits of that policy such as crime
prevention. In such a choice, generic registries and brand registries will
typically have different opinions on cost versus benefit.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="BACKGROUND: yellow; mso-highlight: yellow"><o:p><FONT color=#0000ff
size=3 face=Tahoma> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma>c) Balance between the Houses.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma>There is no objective reason for the current balance of
votes.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list 18.0pt"><FONT
color=#0000ff><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Wingdings; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore"><FONT size=3>§</FONT><SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT size=3 face=Tahoma>The belief that the interests of
users and suppliers should be balanced was predicated not on an external
objective reason but on an internal compromise. In the 1999 Names Council a
number of groups self-formed. These groups became the Constituencies of the
GNSO. These groups in 2008 were charged to agree GNSO reform but they disagreed.
The Houses concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by
severing the link between seats and votes. It was adopted out of expediency.
</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><o:p><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff size=3
face=Tahoma>d) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group
/Constituency</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list 18.0pt"><FONT
color=#0000ff><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Wingdings; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore"><FONT size=3>§</FONT><SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT size=3 face=Tahoma>The Houses structure has made
voting unnecessarily complex. </FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list 18.0pt"><FONT
color=#0000ff><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Wingdings; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore"><FONT size=3>§</FONT><SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT size=3 face=Tahoma>Post 2008, for some groups Council
changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier structure. This has created unnecessary
complexity and duplicated meeting agendas.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P><BR> </P></FONT></BODY></HTML>