<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 10.00.9200.17296"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#330033>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=212464407-05052015>Indeed Chuck is correct in that the double vote was an
earlier change in the GNSO.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=212464407-05052015>My summary over-simplified.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=212464407-05052015>Apologies.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=212464407-05052015>I should have stuck to the usual 157
pages.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=212464407-05052015>Philip</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=212464407-05052015></SPAN></FONT> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org]
<BR><B>Sent:</B> 05 May 2015 05:53<BR><B>To:</B> Gomes, Chuck; BRG;
gnso-review-dt@icann.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on
newest revision of the Westlake review<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>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 name=Generator
content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Wingdings;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Wingdings;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@page WordSection1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
P {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto
}
SPAN.EmailStyle19 {
FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
.MsoChpDefault {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-style-type: export-only
}
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: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Philip,<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; 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: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; 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: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; 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: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Chuck<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 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
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: 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: 0.25in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Wingdings; COLOR: blue">§</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt; 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: 0.25in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Wingdings; COLOR: blue">§</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt; 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: 0.25in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Wingdings; COLOR: blue">§</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt; 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: 0.25in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Wingdings; COLOR: blue">§</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt; 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: 0.25in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Wingdings; COLOR: blue">§</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt; 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: 0.25in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Wingdings; COLOR: blue">§</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt; 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: 0.25in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Wingdings; COLOR: blue">§</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt; 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></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>
<HR
style="BORDER-TOP: medium none; HEIGHT: 1px; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; COLOR: #909090; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 99%; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #b0b0b0">
<TABLE
style="BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none">
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD
style="BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 15px"><A
href="http://www.avast.com/"><IMG border=0 alt="Avast logo"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" NOSEND="1">
</A></TD>
<TD>
<P
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','Verdana','Arial','Helvetica'; COLOR: #3d4d5a">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></TBODY></TABLE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>