<!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
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=236271220-05052015><FONT
size=4>James,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=236271220-05052015><FONT size=4>you said
"any change or policy must include support from those parties who bear the
burden (& liability) of implementation"</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=236271220-05052015><FONT
size=4></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=236271220-05052015><FONT size=4>This is so
true and an element often missed in ICANN politics.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=236271220-05052015><FONT size=4>This is the
essence of the debate the BRG is creating now for an ICANN fit for the future
not rooted in its past.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=236271220-05052015><FONT
size=4>Philip</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=236271220-05052015><FONT
size=4></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=236271220-05052015><FONT
size=4></FONT></SPAN> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr>
<DIV lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> James M. Bladel
[mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> 05 May 2015 21:52<BR><B>To:</B>
Michele Neylon - Blacknight; 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>
<DIV>No surprise here, but I fully agree with Michele. And certainly
“fairness” is in the eye of the beholder. The general notion is that any
change or policy must include support from those parties who bear the burden
(& liability) of implementation. Seems like an important component
of a Consensus-Based organization.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Thanks—</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>J.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><SPAN id=OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; COLOR: black; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; TEXT-ALIGN: left; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From: </SPAN>Michele Neylon - Blacknight <<A
href="mailto:michele@blacknight.com">michele@blacknight.com</A>><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Date: </SPAN>Monday, May 4, 2015 at 17:46 <BR><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To: </SPAN>"Gomes, Chuck" <<A
href="mailto:cgomes@Verisign.com">cgomes@Verisign.com</A>>, BRG <<A
href="mailto:philip@brandregistrygroup.org">philip@brandregistrygroup.org</A>>,
"<A href="mailto:gnso-review-dt@icann.org">gnso-review-dt@icann.org</A>"
<<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>
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<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><A
href="http://www.blacknight.host/">http://www.blacknight.host/</A></DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://blog.blacknight.com/">http://blog.blacknight.com/</A></DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://www.blacknight.press">http://www.blacknight.press</A> -
get our latest news & media coverage</DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://www.technology.ie">http://www.technology.ie</A></DIV>
<DIV>Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072</DIV>
<DIV>Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090</DIV>
<DIV>Social: <A href="http://mneylon.social">http://mneylon.social</A></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-SIZE: 12pt; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; COLOR: black; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; TEXT-ALIGN: left; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in"><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="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"
xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml">
<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 vlink="purple" link="blue">
<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-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
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: 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></DIV></DIV></SPAN></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN></BODY></HTML>