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

["Ron Andruff" <ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

 

Please see my comments in red below.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ron Andruff

dotSport LLC

www.lifedotsport.com 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2014 09:36
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. RA: The list of failed WG's is a long one
Chuck, as you know.  We don't need a list of them to aid us in what we are
trying to do here. The issue here is to include questions for respondents to
help everyone understand if there is a structural problem or not.  Several
of us in the NCPH have indicated that we feel there is and thus would like
to see structural questions asked. 

 

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.  RA: Any WG that is removed from finishing its task by the Board of
Directors is a failed WG.  Consensus was not the issue.  The issue was that
the VI WG was not able to complete its mandate.  We are living in a dream
world if we think we should always be able to reach consensus. RA: I agree
with you on this.  But I would add that the time may be long overdue to
consider looking at Rough Consensus as a viable option to Full Consensus
(the top 2 of five ICANN levels of consensus).  Rough consensus provides for
those who are not in consensus with the larger WG to detail their arguments
to the contrary just as the U.S. Supreme Court Justices do.  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. RA: Can't agree with this
premise.  There is a big gap between reaching consensus and letting market
forces work, but few at ICANN seem to understand that. Sadly, some may feel
that holding out on consensus simply advances the market forces alternative,
which may be more viable to their businesses.  

 

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.  RA: So it bears noting that in the case of two groups in one
house the structural design hoped for, works.  In the case of the NCPH,
there are 5 groups, so that NCA vote doesn't have much bearing at all.  We
need to review this structure. 

 

Chuck

 

-----Original Message-----

From:  <mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [ <mailto: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:  <mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 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

 <http://www.lifedotsport.com> www.lifedotsport.com 

 

-----Original Message-----

From:  <mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [ <mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx]

On Behalf Of Avri Doria

Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11

Cc:  <mailto:ntfy-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 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