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

[Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed
Can we please move on :)


--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.co/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://www.technology.ie
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 5:49 PM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; Ron Andruff
Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Richard G A Westlake
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

If everyone is required to choose, then neither is encouraged.

Chuck

From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:43 PM
To: Ron Andruff
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 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

Yes, I think we all agree on that.  The only question is whether anonymity is 
encourages as the default choice, or instead a public response is encouraged as 
the default choice.

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

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Ron Andruff 
<ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Chuck’s point about candor is well taken.  For my part, I think each respondent 
has the right and obligation to self-select whether their comments are 
anonymous or public.

My two cents worth…

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>

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 Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 16:44
To: Mike Rodenbaugh
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

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<tel:%2B1.415.738.8087>
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>