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

[Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Larisa and Richard.  Chuck's suggestion of providing a clear and
equal choice to each respondent is preferred.  Those who want
confidentiality will still have it.  Relatively few survey respondents will
be interviewed.  And it is better to have the identity of the particular
'SO Member', etc. than such a generic reference.  There are SO Members for
one day, and for 15 years; same with Board members.  Generic references do
not allow the community to analyze whether perhaps Westlake or Staff are
giving too much or too little weight to various speakers.  Again it is core
to ICANN's mandate that we have transparent discussion, so that should be
encouraged by default.  If not, then at least the clear choice ought to be
presented whether to identify oneself or not.

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


On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick <larisa.gurnick@xxxxxxxxx
> wrote:

>  Jen, Chuck, Mike and members of the GNSO Review Working Party,
>
>
>
> Richard Westlake of Westlake Governance has provided the following
> clarification on the topic of confidentiality.
>
> We propose that the default condition should be that the *identity* of
> the responder will be confidential to Westlake Governance.  All other
> aspects of the response besides identity will NOT be confidential and will
> be shared with the GNSO Review Working Party and staff, as well as be
> referenced in the GNSO Review Report, as applicable.  Our rationale for
> this position is as follows:
>
> 1.      *Alignment with the method used for one-on-one interviews*.  When
> independent reviewers conduct interviews, it is a best practice to provide
> the interviewee with the assurance that their identity will be kept
> confidential to the interviewer, unless they otherwise direct the
> interviewer.  However, comments and observations may be referenced and
> cited in the analysis and the report as appropriate.  In our professional
> opinion, creating two different treatments for responses via online tool as
> compared to one-on-one interviews would be confusing to the responders.
>
> 2.      *Encouragement for honest and complete feedback*.  Based on our
> extensive experience, we know that promise of confidentiality of identity
> encourages responders to provide honest and complete feedback.
>
> 3.      *Sufficiently detailed information is still available, to the
> GNSO Review Working Party, the staff and the public *– i.e., demographic
> data and full responses.  The only aspect of a given response that would be
> confidential is the individual’s name and email address.  Additionally, we
> will wherever relevant qualify the source of a given comment within our
> analysis and report – for example, “Board member”, “Staff”, Member of
> another SO/AC” or “Member of the GNSO Community”.
>
>  All additional comments and feedback received on the 360 Assessment have
> been captured and are being addressed by the Westlake team and staff.  We
> will provide a summary of disposition shortly.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your diligent participation in this process and valuable
> insights.
>
>
>
> Larisa
>
> *From:* Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:51 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Mike Rodenbaugh
> *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Richard G A Westlake
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
>
>
>
> 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 <513.746.2801>*
>
> *Follow Me:* *[image: Description: Description: Description: Description:
> cid:image001.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jenwolfe>
>  *[image: Description: Description: Description: Description:
> cid:image002.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* <http://pinterest.com/wolfedomain/> 
> *[image:
> 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 <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 <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:17 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
>
>
>
> 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> 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]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:48 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>