<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
I agree with Chuck's history. We have had double voting, either
directly by giving the 2x votes before the 'improvements' or
indirectly in the 'improved' GNSO by having half as many people have
an equal vote due to complicated formulas few, well maybe Marika,
Glen and he rest of the staff, remember without a cheat sheet. In
fact so complciated it is included at the bottom of each meeting's
agenda.<br>
<br>
As to the second point about this being fair. While it may be good
for business, I am not sure the rest of the community is as certain
of its fairnness. If one thinks about contracts as ICANN' method of
'regulating', giving the regualted half the vote is extraordinary.<br>
<br>
But I understand the CPH wanting to keep the status quo It is very
much to their advantage. I don't expect that to change in my
lifetime.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04-May-15 18:04, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495B4449@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<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 class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Philip,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><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:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org">owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" 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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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:10.0pt;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:10.0pt;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:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="http://www.avast.com/">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<br><a href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>