<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
- From: Jen Wolfe <jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:51:06 +0000
I completely agree and think it’s important we clearly help the survey taker to
understand that they can elect for their comments and responses to be anonymous.
I don’t think we want to mislead the survey taker into thinking that their
comments won’t be made available to the community or considered by the Review
Party if they elect for confidentiality. My understanding is that we would
still have data points on those responses and the qualitative comments, we just
would attribute to a specific person but rather categorically to how the survey
taker responded to questions about ICANN experience.
Larisa or Richard, could you please confirm that’s how the data will be
aggregated and presented to the Working Party and the community?
Thank you to everyone for continued debate and participation in this discussion.
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: [Description: Description: Description: Description:
cid:image001.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jenwolfe>
[Description: Description: Description: Description:
cid:image002.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] <http://pinterest.com/wolfedomain/>
[Description: Description: Description: Description:
cid:image003.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] <https://twitter.com/jenwolfe>
Follow My Blog<http://www.jenwolfe.com/blog>
Domain Names
Rewired<http://www.amazon.com/Domain-Names-Rewired-Strategies-Protection/dp/1118312627>
From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:44 PM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh
Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Richard G A Westlake
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
Some people are much more candid if they can be anonymous.
Chuck
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:17 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick;
gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; Richard G A Westlake
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
That is another approach, but we still favor a default public response, since
we should want as many candid, informed, public responses as possible. Curious
to hear Westlake and others' views on this.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Here’s another approach for consideration (suggested by Rubens Kuhl from the
RySG): “I don't think that defaulting either to confidential or not
confidential should be done. This first question can be mandatory so the
respondent picks whether it's confidential or not, instead of us, IPC, ICANN or
Westlake.”
Chuck
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:48 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick;
gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; Richard G A Westlake
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
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<tel:%2B1.415.738.8087>
http://rodenbaugh.com
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:46 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick;
gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<tel:%2B1.415.738.8087>
http://rodenbaugh.com
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick;
gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<tel:%2B1.415.738.8087>
http://rodenbaugh.com
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick;
gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<tel:%2B1.415.738.8087>
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>
![PNG image](pngHSfmbm0xIh.png)
![PNG image](pngd4VyAE2oia.png)
![PNG image](pngqgKDgAFaQ0.png)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|