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