[PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review

[William Drake]

Hi

At ICANN Seoul in 2009 we were forced into a dysfunctional structure, and ever since then all the conversations I?ve had with colleagues have been to the effect that we need to review this and put forward ideas for alternatives. Not only have we had such conversations repeatly within NCUC and NCSG but we also had one in DC with the CSG at the NCPH meeting, where we all agreed a letter to the board saying, inter alia,

> One issue that was discussed in Washington was the current GNSO review. There was a strong consensus opinion that the current review fundamentally failed to address the main issue of concern; the existing structure of the GNSO?
> What is required is a thorough review of the current GNSO structure that takes full account of the evolution of the DNS and the interaction that is required between those players who have a major role to play in GNSO policy development. Without recognition of the need to undertake this exercise and commit to a program that is developed with the full cooperation of all impacted parties, an important part of ICANNs multi-stakeholder model will continue to be viewed as dysfunctional by many of those who remain committed to try and deliver coherent and progressive policy within the current structural architecture of the GNSO.

In BA we had a breakfast meeting between NCSG and the CSG to which everyone was invited.  There we talked about follow up to our DC letter, and agreed to submit a joint comment.  So James drafts the letter, and now there?s opposition we?d not heard about before on grounds that are a bit disconnected from the concerns that animated all the conversations prior.  Meanwhile the folks party to the prior conversations have not been heard from.  Late July is not terribly good timing...

So I?m a bit puzzled as to how to proceed.  Obviously another conversation needs to be asap, but whether that?s logistically feasible is unclear.

I?m also not clear on how endorsing a letter criticizing the Westlake report?s weak engagement with structural issues can be construed as supporting the Westlake report?s main point with respect to structural issues, but whatever.

On the other hand, I am concerned that the draft letter asking that ?a full review of the current GNSO structure is now undertaken as part of the current GNSO review? could be construed as suggesting Westlake continues to work and does said review.  I think their report should be deep sixed and any structural review performed by an academic institution with some expertise in institutional governance issues (Berkman, Oxford, NYU GovLab, whatever), or, failing that, at least a proper consultancy.

In any event, I?m in Meissen at the IG summer school with Wolfgang, Avri et al and am utterly swamped this week, so I?m not in a position to organize something. But I?d try to join if someone else does.

Bill 


> On Jul 26, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> 1.  I think Ed has raised valuable points, and I dont support the letter and will vote against it for this simple reason alone:  while it is probably a requirement to look at structure (and they didnt) we are, as ED points out, in the middle of an accountability game changing exercise.  Not good timing, ICANN will look different in a couple of years (I hope).
> 2.  I agree wtih AMR that signing the letter is risky, and frankly we dont have facts to go on, because the Westlake study is so deeply flawed.  So let us graciously decline signing the letter....we dont know what we are getting into.
> Stephanie
> 
> On 2015-07-26 9:32, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I can?t say that I agree with Ed in his conclusion on limiting a response to the Westlake report to criticism of the methodology used to discredit the report in its entirety. IMHO, he certainly is correct in pointing out that the flaws in methods makes the recommendations irrelevant, and not worthy of consideration. However, regardless of the review methods and recommendations, the public comment period provides us an opportunity to put into public record some of our own positions on the topics under discussion, irrespective of how well Westlake did their job. I believe we can make our own points, while discrediting the Westlake report with sufficient clarity.
>> 
>> On the other hand, I fully agree with Ed?s conclusions and reasoning on NCSG endorsing the NCPH joint letter about the review. Unless someone can change my mind about this, I can?t support an NCSG endorsement of this letter at this time. To add to what Ed said:
>> 
>> For one thing, I?m not sure I see what the popular thinking is regarding the problem with the 2 house structure. From what I can tell, the 2 house structure affects the voting thresholds on the GNSO council level, which I believe to be good thresholds. The two house structure also ensures that the NCSG has a strong say in one of the two board members selected by the GNSO. Again?, a good thing. If there?s anything else that I?m missing here, please let me know.
>> 
>> Having said that, I don?t see the 2 house structure to be the issue that would be of paramount importance as a result of submitting this letter. It seems more geared towards empowering constituencies within the GNSO, instead of revising the effectiveness of the 2 house structure. I am not at all in favour of this. For many reasons, I believe that representation of policy positions is best done at the stakeholder group level, rather than the constituencies. Although one reading this letter could reach the conclusion that this is an opportunity to open up a discussion on abolishment of constituencies altogether, I do not believe that this is a strategically good idea within the broader context of the review.
>> 
>> As Ed has pointed out, the research methodology used in this review makes its recommendations rather pointless. To use them as a pretext to empowering constituencies is very likely, and would be greatly unfortunate. The Westlake report already recommends that constituency empowerment is desirable, and should be enhanced, but offers no reasonable logic to support these recommendations. Some of the public comments already submitted in response to the review state that Westlake?s recommendations actually do not go far enough in empowering constituencies within the GNSO:
>> 
>> 1. NPOC submission: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00005.html
>> 
>> 2. INTA submission: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfhc153HfbWE.pdf
>> 
>> 3. BRG submission: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfCf0VNWsLqw.pdf
>> 
>> IMHO, endorsing this letter at this time would indirectly endorse the reliability of Westlake?s recommendations. I would be happy to have this discussion, but not with this review serving as a reference for it. If we do endorse the joint letter, I believe this would conflict with some of the views in NCSG regarding the problematic methodology used by Westlake to reach its conclusions and formulate its recommendations. We should have a discussion on the role of constituencies within the GNSO, but not now. This can wait a little.
>> 
>> Finally, I certainly can't stand in the way of NCSG endorsing this letter if the rest of the PC believes we should sign it. I do, however, wish we could hold more of these discussions on NCSG-DISCUSS instead of here.
>> 
>> Apologies about the lengthy email.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Jul 25, 2015, at 3:25 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> HI everyone,
>>>  I have just been able to obtain access to the Google document. Thanks James for what has obviously been a lot of hard work.
>>>  I regret to say that I do not support the substantive content of this document. Namely:
>>>  ---
>>>    We also note that a structural review of the GNSO has not been performed since the introduction of the new bicameral GNSO structure in 2009. Having been in existence for 6 years, we feel that in order for the NCPH to assess the current effectiveness of its structure a comprehensive review of the structure of the GNSO is required under the ICANN Bylaws, as per Article IV, Section 4 below;
>>>  ?These periodic reviews shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, based on feasibility as determined by the Board. Each five-year cycle will be computed from the moment of the reception by the Board of the final report of the relevant review Working Group.?
>>>  The Non-Contracted Parties House requests that a full review of the current GNSO structure is now undertaken as part of the current GNSO review and that until such structural review is complete that the GNSO review cannot be considered finalised.
>>>  --
>>>  I have two reasons for my objection:
>>>    1. I do not believe it is in the interest of the noncommercial community to push for a GNSO structural review any sooner than is absolutely necessary. In fact, I'd be happy if one never took place. The current House structure ensures that noncommercial voices are heard and listened to. It forces compromise at the Council level that might not ordinarily take place and empowers us in doing so. The upcoming election for Council Chair is one such example. Two of our Council members must support the candidate for Chair or he or she will be unsuccessful. Eliminate the Houses and the next Chair of the Council would likely be someone from the IPC. We can stop that from happening if we so chose.
>>>  I recognise that there are folks in our community who have had conversations with Board members who have told them to push for restructuring, that their goals would be met by such action. I need to tell you that my conversations with Board members and senior staff responsible for policy have led me to a very different conclusion. I submit that a General Assembly or the elimination of Stakeholder Groups are a far more likely outcome of a restructuring than an empowerment of the same. I will note that the Board members who  are telling us to restructure are either on the periphery of the Board or new to the Board. The folks I've been speaking to are a bit more senior and I perceive to be a bit more influential. I admit we really do not know who is right or who is wrong, I would just advise being cautious in accepting their advice as gospel. In the absence of any pressing need for reform, a reform  whose result is unknown,  I would suggest it is not in the interest of the NCSG to push for a structural review at this time. That we appear to be willing to do so I'm sure makes our commercial colleagues very happy. It should.
>>>    2. Even if it were in our interest to press for a structural review, this is not the time to do it. Folks, accountability has another year or two to run minimum. How about waiting tho see what ICANN the corporation looks like first before we consent to looking at a restructuring of the GNSO? I can tell you on the basis of what has been proposed we are going to have to make some major changes in the GNSO whether we like it or not. From internal voting thresholds to perhaps assuming legal personality there are many things we'll be dealing with as a result of the transition. It is not the time to be looking at restructuring the entire SO when we are in the middle of restructuring the entire corporation.
>>>  I also need to ask you to consider our volunteers. Who is going to carry the water for us on this major project? The likely volunteers to lead and man/woman this effort are either devoting many of their waking hours to accountability or will soon be doing so on the WHOIS directory services projects. We have the UDRP review, the launch of the next round. Who is left to focus on a restructuring that will demand hundreds of hours of volunteer time? Our commercial colleagues largely get paid to do this. We don't. Many of us are at or past our limit and this would be a major project. Enough!
>>>  In recent days a few of us have been battling our commercial colleagues in setting up voting structures. Robin and I, in particular, have learned to perk our ears up when our CSG friends mention the number 7. They love the number seven because when things are done on the basis of 7 in the GNSO they suddenly find themselves with 42.8% of the GNSO voting strength rather than the 25% they have now. Restructuring to them is a way to get the power we are so far denying them in the accountability battles.
>>>  I understand some people in this SG believe restructuring will allow them to gain advantage in the silly competition between constituencies we have here. I represent both NPOC and NCUC on Council. There are people I like in both constituencies and people I don't like in both constituencies. Please understand that a restructuring at this time is not going to help either constituency. It is more likely to help the CSG. Do not take your eye off our true opponent in most policy battles. It is not NPOC, it ids not the NCUC, it is the CSG.
>>>  In light of my previous post, where I wrote of my general opposition to compromises that reduce the diversity of opinions received during the public comment period and, of greater importance, my opposition to anything that encourages or requests a structural review of the GNSO at this time,  I oppose submitting this letter on behalf of the NCSG. If despite my opposition the decision is made to proceed I ask that the fact that this is not a full consensus position of the NCSG PC be noted in any communication regarding the letter with our Members and that my opposition be duly noted. I will also then submit a public comment stating my opposition to a structural review at this time citing: 1) the ongoing accountability effort and 2) the demands on our volunteers of other major projects. Bad ideas like this is what causes volunteer burnout. I will open this letter for signing by any NCSG member.
>>>  I know a lot of work has gone into this and I'm sorry to have to oppose it but my conscience won't allow me to go along with it. It's a bad idea at a bad time and if we go down this road of a GNSO restructuring while we are so stretched in every other area - think lambs. slaughter.
>>>  Best (and good night - this was my 3 day vacation from accountability and it looks like I have 2 hours to sleep before my next flight and another full day of work; lots of our volunteers are having lives this now. We can't do restructuring right now even if it were a good idea, and it isn't. It isn't fair to our engaged volunteers. The GNSO is working, not perfectly, but it is nothing that needs to be prioritised. Unless you are a member of the CSG.),
>>>  Ed
>>>      From: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 7:56 PM
>>> To: "NCSG-Policy" <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>, "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net>
>>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review
>>>    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
>>> Date: 2015-07-25 3:52 GMT+09:00
>>> Subject: RE: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review
>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> 
>>>  Hi all,
>>> 
>>> Apologies for the late notice on this. Please note the current version of the letter has been distributed to the CSG and I have early indications will be supported.
>>> 
>>> So any changes would need to be restricted to major issues only if possible. Given the diversity of the views we need it to be very neutral and nonpartisan in order to garner support from both sides of the NCPH.
>>> 
>>>  Thanks all,
>>> 
>>>  -James
>>> 
>>>  From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 7:49 PM
>>> To: NCSG-Policy; James Gannon
>>> Subject: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review
>>> 
>>>  hi everyone,
>>> 
>>>  there was discussion in NCPH breakfast in BA to work on joint letter about GNSO review. James volunteered and shared with NCSG and CSG a draft letter ready to  be reviewed and endorsed.
>>> 
>>> please check it here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D2lCIUC6nSVx21CZm8m0vcENKLSV7RwbC-09iSxgZeo/edit?usp=sharing and lets endorse it and confirm with CSG counterpart.
>>> 
>>>  Best Regards,
>>> 
>>>  Rafik
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150726/06ff4ca2/attachment-0001.html>