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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

No problem with them not being mentioned, as long as they made it to the
list.

i confess I have not read yours yet eiither. 
Though Philip's were short enough to have read.  And agreed with, BTW.

thanks

avri

On 04-May-15 10:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> I received them but haven’t had a chance to review them yet.  I
> wondered myself why your comments weren’t mentioned.  I saw yours
> before Philip’s.
>
>  
>
> Chuck
>
>  
>
> *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria
> *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 10:39 AM
> *To:* Jen Wolfe; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] Comment on newest revision of the
> Westlake review
>
>  
>
> 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>
>     [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *BRG
>     *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 4:57 AM
>     *To:* gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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.
>
>
>      
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
>
>       
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>
>  
>



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