Re: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake review

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Did my comments not reach the list?

avri

On 04-May-15 10:26, Jen Wolfe wrote:
>
> Hello everyone!  I hope you all had a great weekend!
>
>  
>
> Thank you to the Westlake team and staff for all of the hard work in
> assembling this information, particularly the detailed listing of all
> comments made throughout the process and responses by Westlake.  And,
>  thank you to Chuck and Philip for forwarding these comments in
> advance of the meeting – very helpful in preparing for the call!
>
>  
>
> I look forward to talking with you all at the top of the hour.  We
> have a two-hour time slot scheduled today and a follow up meeting next
> week with an additional two hours to receive comments from Westlake
> and provide additional comments about the report before it is
> officially released to the public. 
>
>  
>
> We plan to provide Westlake an initial opportunity to provide an
> overview of the report today and then will go through the report
> section by section to provide everyone opportunities to comment.  We
> will continue to capture those comments, as in prior discussions, and
> Westlake will continue to document its response to those comments. 
>
>  
>
> I look forward to the discussion and appreciate all of your hard work
> and time!
>
>  
>
> With kindest regards,
>
>  
>
> Jen
>
>  
>
> *jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB*
>
> Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm
>
> */513.746.2800 x 1 or Cell 513.238.4348/*
>
> */IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014/*
>
>  
>
> *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *BRG
> *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 4:57 AM
> *To:* gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the Westlake
> review
>
>  
>
> I would like to thank Westlake for the latest report and make the
> following 5 comments and recommendations.
>
> *1. Page 14 preamble on structure**
> *"Many people commented on the GNSO’s structure and complexity and
> argued that these needed to change. We do not consider that the GNSO’s
> structure is perfect, or that it cannot be improved, but, having
> analysed the issues in some detail, our view is that the structure of
> the GNSO is not the main cause of its most pressing challenges.
> In addition, the current structure of the GNSO has been in place for
> only about three years."
> This comment is misleading.
> The 2 House structure was implemented in 2008. That is 7 years ago.
> Do Westlake mean the current form of the PDP and Working Groups?
> This is different.
> *Please change the text to clarify.**
> *
> *2. The "pressing challenges" and recommendations 36 - 41.**
> *These all focus on diversity.
> They are  fine recommendations but NOT ones that addresses the issue
> of structure. *Please change the text to clarify.*
>
> *3.ICANN Board**
> *In its resolution of 28 September 2013 the ICANN Board stated:
> "*GNSO Structure is unlikely* to accommodate the anticipated new
> stream of stakeholders resulting from the expansion of the TLD space.
> The GNSO Review will be an important vehicle for considering and
> addressing this issue. The unbalance that is already occurring needs
> to be addressed by the GNSO Review. ”
> *Why is this Board resolution not addressed in the report?**
> *
> 4. Page 14: "Many people commented on the GNSO’s structure and
> complexity and argued that these needed to change"
> *Why is the opinion of "many people" not addressed in the report?**
> *
> 5. Understanding the past and the present.
> Little attempt to analyse the lack of relevance* today of the 2 Houses
> structure has been made.
> *Why is this?**
> **See below for a snip from the BRG survey submission
>
>
> Philip Sheppard
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> *EDIT FROM BRG PAPER AND SURVEY SUBMISSION*
>
> The 2008 GNSO reform created two Houses within the GNSO: the
> Contracted Party House and the Non-Contracted Party House. Put simply
> there is a suppliers House and a users House. And those Houses were
> given equal votes. This was a change from the GNSO of several separate
> Constituencies. This created a 4-tier structure.
>
>  
>
> The rationale for the 2008 reform was threefold.
>
> a) Separable interests.
>
> There was a belief that the underlying user groups and supplier groups
> had separable interests that could be divided into six separable
> entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual
> property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial interests).
>
>  
>
> b) Commonality.
>
> The rationale for the two Houses was that suppliers are impacted
> economically by policy and may be impacted in the same way: and users
> are impacted in a variety of ways by policy and may be impacted in the
> same way.
>
>  
>
> c) Balance between the Houses.
>
> There was a belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be
> balanced.
>
>  
>
> _Issues_
>
> In 2014, everything has changed. The rationale has changed. Indeed,
> the current structure creates new conflicts of interest.
>
>  
>
> a) Separable interests.
>
> While different interests continue, it is no longer true that the
> separable interests are accurately reflected by the six separable
> entities (registries, registrars, business interests, intellectual
> property interests, internet service providers, non-commercial
> interests). There are two reasons for this.
>
> §         Conflicting relationships. There is a complex web of
> relationships that overlap and conflict within the six groups. A
> typical .brand registry may be simultaneously: a Registry, a Business
> Constituency member, an Intellectual Property Constituency member, and
> have a contractual relationship with other generic registries for
> back-end services.
>
> §         What is commercial? The old division within the users House
> between commercial and non-commercial is no longer relevant. Just
> within the 400 .brand registry applicants, some 15 are not-for-profit
> organisations representing some $69 billion in annual turnover. Two of
> these are current BRG members.
>
>  
>
> b) Commonality.
>
> The commonality assumption was historically questionable.
>
> The commonality of interests within the old groups has changed.
>
> §         It was _never_ true that users within each House acted as if
> they were impacted in the same way by policy. There has often been
> disagreement between commercial and non-commercial users, and between
> types of non-commercial user. This has been seen most clearly on
> issues connected with crime prevention (such as accurate Whois records
> and a difference of opinion on the balance of freedom of speech versus
> crime prevention).
>
> §         It is _no longer_ true that Registries are impacted
> economically by policy in the same way. The 400 .brand Registries will
> have a different view on many policy issues to the 800 generic
> Registries. This divide will be most clear where there is a choice
> between the costs imposed by a policy and the benefits of that policy
> such as crime prevention. In such a choice, generic registries and
> brand registries will typically have different opinions on cost versus
> benefit.
>
>  
>
> c) Balance between the Houses.
>
> There is no objective reason for the current balance of votes.
>
> §         The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should
> be balanced was predicated not on an external objective reason but on
> an internal compromise. In the 1999 Names Council a number of groups
> self-formed. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO. These
> groups in 2008 were charged to agree GNSO reform but they disagreed.
> The Houses concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this
> disagreement by severing the link between seats and votes. It was
> adopted out of expediency.
>
>  
>
> d) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group
> /Constituency
>
> §         The Houses structure has made voting unnecessarily complex.
>
> §         Post 2008, for some groups Council changed from a 2-tier to
> a 4-tier structure. This has created unnecessary complexity and
> duplicated meeting agendas.
>
>
>  
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com