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

[Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Still has the wrong default, in IPC's opinion, and per general ICANN
notions of transparency.  How about this?

“*Your **identity** will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent
reviewer, if you so elect by checking the box below.  Otherwise your
identified response will** be shared for further analysis with the GNSO
Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff.*”


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


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Would the following rewording work:
>
>
>
> “*Identity of responders **will not be made available publicly. Your *
> *identity** will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent
> reviewer, unless you are willing for your **identity** to be shared for
> further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN
> staff, please indicate in the consent box below*”
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:46 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>