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

[Stephane Van Gelder <svg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't believe this is an issue as I think all SGs in the CPH and all
constituencies in the NCPH have rules that prohibit a voting member from
being a voting member of another group in the GNSO.

Can staff perhaps enlighten us on this?

Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
Milathan LTD
"Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice"

T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
Skype: SVANGELDER
www.Milathan.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/>
----------------
Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com


On 10 June 2014 19:48, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
> It's something that probably needs to be addressed if it hasn't been
> already.
>
> I'd be quite disturbed if a single company was voting in multiple places
> on policies etc., that benefited them
>
> I don't have an issue with companies / organisations having membership (of
> some kind) in multiple groups. If, for example, we were to start selling
> more transit etc., then we'd probably want to follow the ISPs more closely.
> But voting is a different matter.
>
> Regards
>
> Michele
>
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Domains
> http://www.blacknight.co/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://www.technology.ie/
> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:44 PM
> To: Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions
>
>
> I know some structures (like the RrSG) have either adopted changes to
> their bylaws, or are working to, that would prohibit members from voting if
> they are voting members in other SGs.  But it is not clear to me how this
> is enforced on a community-wide basis.
>
> J.
>
>
> On 6/10/14, 12:28 , "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I thought there was already a rule somewhere in the SIC documents about
> >being able to vote in only one SG.  Of course a company with many
> >divisions could find a way to be a member of several.  Or could have
> >staff members join multiple Constituencies or SGs as individuals.
> >
> >But how would one prevent that?  Of course one way to start is the
> >requirement that all SGs list all of their members on a public web site.
> > I think wee already have that requirement, somewhere, but I am not
> >sure it is followed by all with equal fervor.
> >
> >Perhaps we should also have a question about the degree to which the
> >various SGs and Cs follow SIC rules.
> >
> >avri
> >
> >
> >On 10-Jun-14 19:07, Volker Greimann wrote:
> >>
> >> One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to
> >> devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of
> >> one entity within multiple constituencies.
> >> Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the
> >> entire structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by
> >> specialized interest groups that happen to fit more than one
> constituency.
> >>
> >> This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational
> >> issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an entity.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Volker
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 06.06.2014 23:44, schrieb Ron Andruff:
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>
>
>
>
>