RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review

["Ron Andruff" <ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Chuck, 
Dear colleagues,

I was not a member of the Working Group that made the bicameral
recommendation, but I was part of the community at that time and recall the
anguish that it caused then and continues to.  Despite your view that there
was no last minute compromise solution put forward, that is not how others
saw it.

Having discussed it with those who were part of the WG, there appear to be
two issues:

1. The 'House Compromise'

The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was
not predicated on an external objective reason, rather on an internal
compromise. In 1999 the Names Council self-formed into a number of groups.
These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO and in 2008 the
Constituencies were charged to agree on GNSO reform, but they disagreed. The
'Houses' concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by
severing the link between GNSO Council seats and votes. This was/is the key
issue as it overcame the problem for the Registries and Registrars in that,
together, they only had six seats in relation to all of the rest of the
Council.   This compromise was adopted out of expediency; not because it had
some intrinsic rationale to it.  And it came at the 11th hour - not from the
beginning of the Working Group.

2) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency

The House structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. Pre 2008, we were
just Constituencies within Council (a 2-tier structure). Post 2008, for some
groups, Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier. Today, for example, the
BC is a Constituency in the CSG in the NCPH in Council (4-tier).

The result of this structure creates unnecessary complexity: meetings of the
CSG and of the House. And the voting system is complex.  As noted in
previous posts, the NCPH is struggling to elect a Board representative that
meets the needs and desires of both sides of the House as well as all of the
5 Constituencies in the House (IPC, ISP, BC / NPOC, NCUC).

The House structure has created duplication: CSG agendas and NCPH agendas
often covering the same issues as BC agendas.

I hope that we can agree to dismiss the notion that what we are discussing
are "mischaracterizations" and recognize that - for some parts of the GNSO -
the current model does not work as hoped and therefore needs review.

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 Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 19:26
To: Ron Andruff; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'BRG'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review


I am really bothered by the ongoing mischaracterization of the bicameral
house structure as an 11th  hour compromise.  It's fine to argue for adding
questions on structure but please base your arguments on facts not
inaccurate characterizations.  I have repeatedly asked for specific examples
illustrating the failure of the house structure in policy development and
have only received broad generalizations.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:38 PM
To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'BRG'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review


Dear colleagues,

Thanks for sending this mail along, Jen.  I support Philip's list of review
items.  Just want to weigh in on this with the request that we consider
adding these elements to the 360 review.

To quote Philip: " Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. "

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 Jen Wolfe
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:38
To: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: BRG
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review


Hi everyone,

I am forwarding an email from Philip Sheppard of the Brand Registry Group,
commenting on the transcript of our most recent meeting.  I have copied him
here so that you may include him in any replies to his comments.  I do also
have a request out to the SIC to clarify if their intent is to cover
structural issues separately or if we should include it in our recommended
scope.  This will be forwarded out as soon as received.

I look forward to continuing our discussion on list and to meeting in person
in London.  

With kindest regards,

Jennifer

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: BRG [mailto:philip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:23 AM
To: Jen Wolfe
Subject: RE: GNSO review

Jen,
please forward this to the list for me.
I have also send a subscribe request but that has been forwarded to the list
owner.
Philip
---------------------------------------

I just read the transcript of the 5 June GNSO review group call.
I was especially interested in the comments  (from Ron Andruff and others)
on ensuring the survey asks broad questions such as challenging the Houses
structure.  Ron rightly pointed out there was no objective rationale for
this - it was an eleventh hour negotiated compromise.   

In general, speaking on behalf of new stakeholders to ICANN, we would hope
the GNSO review survey would allow opinion on the rationale for (and
representativeness of):
- constituencies
- stakeholder groups
- houses
- Council
- Non com appointees
- liaisons 

as well as seeking to resolve: 
- how best to involve the public interest , and
- how to embrace ICANN's new registry stakeholder groups such as brand,
geos, communities.
  
Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. 
Philip
 
Philip Sheppard
Director General
Brand Registry Group
www.brandregistrygroup.org