[PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review

[Stephanie Perrin]

I think we all converge on that point below Bill....maybe not on how to 
resolve it.  We could of course edit the letter (I did indeed look at it 
with that in mind) to see if we could change it to asking for a de novo 
review...but I agree with Ed's point that we have NO horses to put on 
that task.  Personally, I have shied away from getting into discussions 
on ICANN structure and voting, because I have not done all the research 
on it that would make me comfortable to give opinions.  I have a high 
threshold there for comfort, and I will not be comfortable throwing this 
issue (which as you point out has been fraught with problems since 2009) 
to someone who is game to do it without the same level of research.  And 
all the oldies who know where the dead bodies were thrown into the pit 
are overloaded. So I think we duck.  Politely, reluctantly, etc. with 
thanks for being approached, but IANA has eaten our lives lately and we 
need to give this a good think...(unlike Westlake)
tseph

On 2015-07-26 12:03, William Drake wrote:
> 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150726/25eb1932/attachment.html>