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

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

No Ron.  The structure was designed for the two SGs to be balanced, not the 
constituencies.  That was intentional.  How the SGs handle their constituencies 
is up to them as long as their charters are approved by the Board and as long 
as each SG has the same voting power.

Chuck

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 2:48 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx; 'BRG'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review


Dear Chuck,



In answer to your question: [Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my 
question about using the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House 
election of a Board seat.



We now have an NPOC, which means irrespective of the NCA, at least one 
additional vote is needed from the other side.



Kind regards,



RA



Ron Andruff

dotSport LLC

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



-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck 
[mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 14:25
To: Ron Andruff
Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; 
'BRG'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review



I was a part of it Ron.  There are always compromises when there are different 
points of view and they usually happen toward the end.  But it was not last 
minute because there was no deadline that I recall.  It was a compromise that 
was reached by those on the group after considering different options.



Please see my other responses below Ron.



Chuck



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

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:20 PM

To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

Cc: 'BRG'

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





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.

[Chuck Gomes] Here are the objective reasons:  Under the original DNSO 
structure, users outnumbered suppliers 5 to 2 so suppliers essentially had no 
ability to influence policy decisions; at the same time suppliers were required 
by contract to implement consensus policy.; the fact that suppliers signed 
agreements committing themselves to implement consensus policies without 
knowing what those policies were in advance was very unique in the business 
world and it happened with the understanding that community consensus including 
registries and registrars would be reached.



These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO and in 2008 the 
Constituencies were charged to agree on GNSO reform, but they disagreed.

[Chuck Gomes] The balance between users and suppliers was already in place 
before the current procedures were in place.



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.

[Chuck Gomes]  Like I already said, the balance of voting was already in place 
and had been for several years so that did not change. The number of seats was 
the new issue, not the number of votes.  If we had balanced the number of seats 
on the Council across SGs, the Councilor would have become almost a third 
larger than it is now, and many of us thought that that was not desirable.  At 
the same time it was thought that each of the existing constituencies should 
have at least two seats; that is how the number six was arrived at.  And it 
didn't  seem necessary from a representative point of view for registries and 
registrars to have six seats each.



Some history is probably helpful.  Before the current structure of the Council, 
it looked like this:

- Each of six constituencies had three representatives on the Council: BC, 
ISCPC, IPC, NCUC, RrC, RyC..

- There were also three NCAs.

- All councilors had one vote each except for the registries and registrars who 
had 2 votes each, thereby creating the balance between the users and the 
suppliers.

- This structure was implemented in the Stewart Lynn reform.







And it came at the 11th hour - not from the beginning of the Working Group.

[Chuck Gomes] Like most compromises do; but that shouldn't be used as an 
argument to denigrate it.  It should be evaluated on its merits or lack thereof.



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).

[Chuck Gomes] As I explained in the history lesson above, registry and 
registrar representative votes counted double.  That was a complication over 
what it was originally but it was simple arithmetic.  In the current structure 
it was complicated a little further; the thresholds added more complexity but 
once those are understood it is a simple matter of counting the votes in each 
house and comparing them to the thresholds.  Glen seems to handle this easily 
each month.  Even if the voting is more complex, that is not very sound reason 
to change it.



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).

[Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my question about using the NCA 
in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House election of a Board seat.  As 
part of that "last minute compromise", as you like to call it, one NCA was 
assigned to each house to provide a presumably neutral party in cases where the 
two SGs were deadlocked.  This is an illustration of the careful thought that 
was put into the effort, unlike your characterization of it.  The group 
anticipated that there would be times when the two SGs in a house would 
disagree and provided a way to deal with that.



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

[Chuck Gomes] That's true of the CPH as well.  But that would be an issue 
whenever collaboration of different groups occurs whether there are houses or 
not.  And I think we want as much collaboration as possible.



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.[Chuck Gomes]  
As you might guess from what I said above, I am not convinced.  I can accept 
the fact that many people may not like it but no one has convinced me that 
there is a functional problem that cannot be solved in the current structure.



Kind regards,



RA





Ron Andruff

dotSport LLC

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



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

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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> 
[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<mailto: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<http://www.lifedotsport.com>



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

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://www.brandregistrygroup.org>