RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

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

Mike,

There has been  pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this.  Several 
people have asked for the IPC rationale.  I communicated that the main reason I 
heard was transparency.  If you can add to that, I will share it with the RySG.

Chuck

From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Richard G A Westlake
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Chuck,

Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change to the 
prior draft's default.  After our London interaction, I figured the issue might 
be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that has happened; 
so clearly now is the time to have that discussion.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck 
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Mike,

Unless I missed it, I didn’t hear anyone but you advocating for the default 
being ‘public response’ but I forwarded the IPC position to the RySG list to 
see if any of our participants feel the same.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>] 
On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM
To: Larisa B. Gurnick
Cc: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; Richard G A 
Westlake
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Thanks Larisa.  IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been changed 
from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only be viewed 
by Westlake.  I did not note consensus in the Working Party for such a change.  
IPC's position is that the default should be public response, with the clear 
option for any respondent to choose their particular response to remain 
confidential.  We see no justification for 'default confidential' response, 
given the importance of this review and of ICANN's goal to be a transparent 
organization.  The Working Party and the public should have access to the vast 
majority of the responses so we can adequately comment on Westlake's analysis 
of them.

Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake 
justification for making this change.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087<tel:%2B1.415.738.8087>
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick 
<larisa.gurnick@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:larisa.gurnick@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Dear All,
The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback 
received last week.  The revised 360 Assessment is available 
here<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSO360ReviewUATv3>.  Please provide your 
final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies  by  August 
1, 23:59 UTC.

The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining 
to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.  A responder who is 
directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able 
to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like.

The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of 
the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the 
responder.

Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and 
editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc.

Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and 
informative.

Larisa B. Gurnick
Director, Strategic Initiatives
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
larisa.gurnick@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:larisa.gurnick@xxxxxxxxx>
310 383-8995<tel:310%20383-8995>