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

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

For full transparency it is essential to deal with the fact that some groups 
have just organizational members (e.g., RySG) with individual delegates while 
some have organizational and individual members.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 1:28 PM
To: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions


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
>>
>