<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>
<div>
<div>+1 Chuck</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don’t have Chuck’s historical memory, but I strongly agree with the points he raised.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Michele</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div id="MAC_OUTLOOK_SIGNATURE">
<div>
<div>
<div>--</div>
<div>Mr Michele Neylon</div>
<div>Blacknight Solutions</div>
<div>Hosting, Colocation & Domains</div>
<div>http://www.blacknight.host/</div>
<div>http://blog.blacknight.com/</div>
<div>http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage</div>
<div>http://www.technology.ie</div>
<div>Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072</div>
<div>Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090</div>
<div>Social: http://mneylon.social</div>
<div>-------------------------------</div>
<div>Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty</div>
<div>Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:12pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Chuck Gomes<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Monday 4 May 2015 23:04<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>BRG, "<a href="mailto:gnso-review-dt@icann.org">gnso-review-dt@icann.org</a>"<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>RE: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Philip,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">I disagree with your argument and history in your fifth point about the balance between the houses. In the original DNSO, there was no balance.
Non-contracted parties outnumbered contracted parties 5 to 2. That resulted in contracted parties having negligible impact even though they were required to implement consensus policies and hence could be heavily impacted by them. It was a terrible model
from a business point of view.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">This was corrected in the first GNSO reform. That is when the balance of voting was instituted. That principle was simply continued in later reforms.
The balance of voting existed before the bicameral house model was implemented.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Finally, I don’t think that the reason for balanced voting has changed at all. If either contracted or non-contracted parties have a voting advantage,
then an imbalance will be created that unfairly favors one side and lessons the chances for all parties working toward meaningful consensus.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif;">
<a href="mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org">owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org">mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>BRG<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 04, 2015 4:57 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-review-dt@icann.org">gnso-review-dt@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I would like to thank Westlake for the latest report and make the following 5 comments and recommendations.<br>
<br>
<strong><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">1. Page 14 preamble on structure</span></strong><b><br>
</b>"<span style="color:blue">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</span>."<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><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Please change the text to clarify.</span></strong><b><br>
</b><br>
<strong><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">2. The "pressing challenges" and recommendations 36 - 41.</span></strong><b><br>
</b>These all focus on diversity.<br>
They are fine recommendations but NOT ones that addresses the issue of structure.
<strong><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Please change the text to clarify.</span></strong><br>
<br>
<strong><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">3.ICANN Board</span></strong><b><br>
</b>In its resolution of 28 September 2013 the ICANN Board stated:<br>
<span style="color:blue">"<strong><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">GNSO Structure is unlikely</span></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.</span> ”<br>
<strong><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Why is this Board resolution not addressed in the report?</span></strong><b><br>
</b><br>
4. Page 14: "<span style="color:blue">Many people commented on the GNSO’s structure and complexity and argued that these needed to change</span>"<br>
<strong><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Why is the opinion of "<span style="color:blue">many people</span>" not addressed in the report?</span></strong><b><br>
</b><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><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Why is this?</span></strong><b><br>
</b>*See below for a snip from the BRG survey submission</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br>
Philip Sheppard<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<strong><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">EDIT FROM BRG PAPER AND SURVEY SUBMISSION</span></strong><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">The rationale for the 2008 reform was threefold.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">a) Separable interests.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">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).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">b) Commonality.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">c) Balance between the Houses.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">There was a belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">Issues<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">In 2014, everything has changed. The rationale has changed. Indeed, the current structure creates new conflicts of interest.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">a) Separable interests.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-family:Wingdings;color:blue">§</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:blue">
</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-family:Wingdings;color:blue">§</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:blue">
</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">b) Commonality.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">The commonality assumption was historically questionable.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">The commonality of interests within the old groups has changed.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-family:Wingdings;color:blue">§</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:blue">
</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">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).
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-family:Wingdings;color:blue">§</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:blue">
</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">c) Balance between the Houses.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">There is no objective reason for the current balance of votes.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-family:Wingdings;color:blue">§</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:blue">
</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">d) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-family:Wingdings;color:blue">§</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:blue">
</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">The Houses structure has made voting unnecessarily complex.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-family:Wingdings;color:blue">§</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:blue">
</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; color: blue;">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>