RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jen,

I know that the SIC suggested that structural issues should not dealt with in 
this part of the review.  I concluded from that that there would be a follow-up 
review in which structural issues would be a focus.  My assumption was that 
that would happen after this review is done and that we would not wait until 
the next GNSO Review came around three years or so down the road.  If I am 
incorrect on that, then I think those who want to include structural questions 
have a legitimate concerns.  When I said that I did not think we should include 
structural questions in the 360 Review we are working on, I was assuming that 
such questions would be included when we are finished with this phase of the 
GNSO Review.

I think it would be really helpful if you could seek clarification on this for 
us from the SIC.  I suggest that we respond to your questions about whether we 
should include structural questions in the current 360 be answered after we get 
that clarification.  In my case, the clarification will affect my view.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 11:14 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions

Hi everyone,

Thank you to Chuck and Ron for continuing the dialogue on an important topic.  
If I may suggest, I'd like to try to reframe this a bit in terms of the scope 
of our work.  In reading through the email chains we seem to have jumped a bit  
ahead into analysis and recommendations.   At this stage, it's important we try 
to focus our discussion on the topic of what questions are included in the 
survey.   There will definitely be a phase to our work where we are reviewing 
and analyzing data and forming our own conclusions and recommendations as part 
of a self-review,  but given the SIC's time frame, I'd like to make sure we 
provide the SIC and staff clear consensus on what we believe should be included 
in the scope of the questions and in the language of the questions.  

Are we recommending to the SIC that structural questions be included in the 
survey?  Or, do you all think that is out of scope for this survey?  If this is 
important data to gather, should we create closed ended or open ended questions 
addressing this issue?     

I appreciate your responsiveness to these issues.

With kindest regards,

Jen


JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM 
MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL 
PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY CORP INTL 2013 IAM 300 
- TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011,  2012 & 2013
513.746.2801
Follow Me:
Follow My Blog
Domain Names Rewired


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2014 9:36 AM
To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions


Ron,

Please provide a list of "the other issues, big and small, that have failed 
more often than not locked in stalemates" if we are going to continue this 
discussion.  That can be done on this list or off list.  I think that Stephane 
is correct that the issue is whether or not to include questions related to 
structure at this time and not to debate whether structure is a problem or not. 
 The reason I entered into the discussion is because others stated that it was 
a problem.

Why do you consider vertical integration a failure?  The fact that no consensus 
was reached doesn't mean the effort failed.  It could simply mean that there 
was no consensus to be reached.  That should not be taken as failure.  We are 
living in a dream world if we think we should always be able to reach 
consensus.  In cases where we can't reach consensus, that is a good time to let 
market forces work unless security and stability are at risk.

Regarding the GNSO board candidate, has the NCPH candidate been included in 
that decision?  One of the purposes of putting an NCA into each house was to 
break ties.  That is a key part of the structural design we have.  The CPH has 
used this several times where the RySG and RrSG have disagreed; the NCA broke 
the tie.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 5:45 PM
To: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions


Dear Chuck, James and all,

As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last one I am 
seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an understanding of what I believe 
Avri and I are trying to bring to the fore.  What I am saying is that the 
structure we have now appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and 
Registrars - within all of ICANN.  Those of us who were not contracted parties 
were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how Yugoslavia was 
created post WWII, and we all know what happened to that mashup...  

If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment James, re:
the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it is 
commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's interests, as 
examples.  Otherwise the memberships in the various bodies that make up the 
NPCH could not be further from one another in their interests and actions.

So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the NCPH is 
palpable.  It is not dislike of each other, rather different views as 
constituencies.  Thus, we should give the house structure a serious review to 
see if there are other ways to structure the organization so that it better 
serves the institution and likewise the community.  

While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the years, the 
few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the other issues, big and 
small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates, e.g.
Vertical Integration.  One result of VI is new registries handpicking even 
trademarked names and putting them into their own registrar to sell for $1000's 
as premium names...  Was that the intended result the Board thought would 
happen when they took that over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of 
a failure of the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...?  I don't know the answer, but 
I do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will haunt ICANN 
for decades to come.  Some may see this example as conflating issues, but it is 
not so much that as an example of what happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it 
could. 

In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get on with a 
full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... stakeholder groups, houses, 
NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants (constituencies, communities, brands, 
geos) etc.  

We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and tomorrow's (as 
far as we can anticipate them) needs.  The survey respondents will give us the 
data to construct the 'new GNSO'.  We just have to figure out how to put a 
survey together that asks all of these critical questions.

A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has also come up 
on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the ICANN Board with the most 
highly-qualified representatives.  When I consider how much vetting prospective 
Board members go through via the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 
2013 and again this year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting 
those Board members that come through the SG's get...
Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical methodology?
Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the community would 
seize on it for all the good reasons one can imagine.  So what quality of Board 
would we get if each constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three 
candidates for the Nom Com to vet and select one from?  Would that raise the 
bar?  Would such a vetting process remove from the Board those whose first 
interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes.
Workable, maybe.  Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, 
absolutely...

Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope to 
generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up.  Otherwise, we will see 
change coming from the top down, whether we like it or not.  And then what?

Kind regards,

RA


Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11
Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions




On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a 
>> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's 
>> primary role?
>> 
> 
> The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without 
> months of garbage processing.  It just does not work.  We have great 
> trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in 
> electing a Board member this time.


[Chuck Gomes]  I don't think this
> has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of
> an issue that needs to be dealt with.   I would like to think (maybe
> naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing 
> structure.  If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, then 
> maybe it should be discussed by the full Council.

It can't be.  If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and gets 
worse all the time.

And I certainly can't see discussing it in council.  What is the difference 
between discussing it in the house and in council.  the other house is going to 
give us advice on how to get along.  Not too likely.
In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has never been a 
workable formula.

Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of their 
neighbors.

And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did.  And indeed when it gets 
too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but that is not way 
to live.

> 
> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious 
> that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being 
> able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO.  That is a kind of 
> dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later.


[Chuck
> Gomes]  I think this is kind of an unfair statement.  The reality is 
> that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round.  If 
> you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to 
> rotate the position among the two houses.  I haven't discussed this 
> with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as 
> long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to 
> commit the time.

Yeah maybe.  But no.  In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH people tell 
me this that they realized there was no way we could ever put up a candidate 
that could win because our vote would always split.
Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather funny.
Pathetic humor, but funny.

> 
>> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in 
>> general?  I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly.

On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues.  We mostly all know 
how to behave professionally in council most of the time.

> 
> The Council is not sperate form the GNSO.  The dysfunction is in both 
> on the NCPH side.
> 
> Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider 
> adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks 
> like a possible limitation.


[Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly
> be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible.

That would imbalance the house which would be complicated.
Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members.
> 
> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time.
> 
> What I am arguing for is gathering information.  Maybe my perception 
> is mine alone.  The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering 
> information strikes me as sort of problematic, though.


[Chuck Gomes]
> As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering 
> the information but just question whether we should do it in this 
> exercise, i.e., the timing.

I do not understand the timing issue.  This is the time.  next time is in 3 
years.  There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out what needs to 
be done.


> 
> If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions 
> won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and 
> I am wrong.


[Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask
> questions about structure, I won't fight.  And I didn't say everything 
> is wonderful.  Everything is far from wonderful but I am not convinced 
> that is largely a factor of structure.

There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key component to 
things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a critical one.
You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or you put 
together a structure that allows many different alliances to form, with these 
alliance changing over time.  Because of the strict diremption in the voting 
structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, alliances are much more difficult. 
 When I compare the days in the council my last time, with this time, the 
alliance making was far more dynamic in the past.

> 
> 
> As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info.
> 
> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost 
> everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is 
> figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members.  But for the 
> NCPH it would remove a limitation.
> 
> As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that 
> one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by
> 5 people. 


[Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me.

(: that is far too few people for a voting population.  The idea that one board 
seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by
13 in another is a problem in accountability.  21 voters is small enough.  I 
would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large book and add the 
SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth.
But I know that is a structural change too far.  The point is a large more 
diverse representative voting populations makes for better democracy, aka it is 
better for accountability

> 
> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on 
> the community's influence on the GNSO.

BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee (which i 
was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*.
They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs.

[Chuck Gomes] I need some
> help understanding this.  BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is providing 
> some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and 
> representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review.  To me that is much 
> more valuable than any vote would be.

Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting.  And she could do just 
as well if she had a vote.  Many people do good jobs in the council without 
needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan provides great service as a 
neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The two issues are not related.  The 
community selects three people to contribute to the decisions making.  Voting 
is part of that.

Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage teams?
We would be contributing just as much.

avri

* yiddish word for a special kind of craziness