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

[Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good then we at least agree as to the body of the responses.  But the
current draft instructions seem clear that the entire response will remain
confidential only to Westlake, not even to Staff:

Individual responses will not be made available publicly. Your input will
remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are
willing for your individual feedback to be shared for further analysis with
the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate
in the consent box below
 I consent to the independent reviewer sharing my individual feedback with
the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff for the express
purpose of assisting with the 2014 GNSO Review.

We still may disagree as to whether names should be attached to the
response by default.  We in the IPC think giving an 'opt out' to public
disclosure is sufficient protection for the relatively few people who would
want to keep their name out of the purview of the Working Party and/or
public.  When evaluating the responses, it is important to know who is
speaking.

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


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Mike,
>
>
>
> If I am understanding you correctly, I wonder whether we are talking past
> each other.  In advocating for confidentiality, I am not saying that
> responses should be confidential but rather that the identity of the
> responder should be kept confidential by default.  I think that the
> responses should be publicly available.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12 PM
> *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
>
>
>
> Thanks Chuck.  In a nutshell, we think the survey responses will be very
> important, and should not generally be kept secret.  In order for the
> Working Party to do its job, and for the public to properly weigh in on the
> recommendations of Westlake and/or the Working Party, the underlying data
> generally needs to be made available.  ICANN is an open and transparent
> organization, data and opinions are typically shared publicly for the
> benefit, input and buy-in of the entire community.  Those respondents who
> wish to maintain confidentiality of their response can elect to do so, and
> so that should address any confidentiality concern.
>
>
>   Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW
>
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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> 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] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh
> *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM
> *To:* Larisa B. Gurnick
> *Cc:* 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
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick <
> 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
>
> 310 383-8995
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>