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

["Ron Andruff" <ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Chuck,

 

As a result of the bicameral structure, in the NCPH, the voting structure
for all House-related elections is cumbersome, i.e. the winner must have 8
votes in any combination - e.g., BC-2; IPC-2; ISP-2; NPOC-1 (or NCUC-1);
NCA-1

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ron Andruff

dotSport LLC

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

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 15:06
To: Ron Andruff
Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx; 'BRG'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review

 

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 <mailto: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:  <mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
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';  <mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 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

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

 

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

From:  <mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
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';  <mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
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:  <mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
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';  <mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 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

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

 

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

From:  <mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
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:  <mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 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>
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

 <http://www.brandregistrygroup.org> www.brandregistrygroup.org