Changes

<blockquote>It is obvious from the documents which interests moved the farthest and were most willing to compromise in search of consensus. The work product of the group far more closely resembles the Board Governance Committee proposal than it does the Joint Users Group proposal that was before the Board. The bicameral approach, which originated from the registrar constituency representative, was a useful and productive effort to reframe the discussion, but it did not fundamentally alter the recurring dynamic: We did not reach full consensus because a few participants drew red lines very close to their initial preferred position, or, in one case, very close to the status quo. Notably, throughout the six meetings of our group, and hundreds of e-mail exchanges, the recurrent pattern was that representatives of the GNSO constituencies were far more willing to make compromises than were the participants not representing constituencies. I believe that the constituency representatives, on their own, might well have achieved consensus.<ref name="wggcr" /></blockquote>

<blockquote>It is obvious from the documents which interests moved the farthest and were most willing to compromise in search of consensus. The work product of the group far more closely resembles the Board Governance Committee proposal than it does the Joint Users Group proposal that was before the Board. The bicameral approach, which originated from the registrar constituency representative, was a useful and productive effort to reframe the discussion, but it did not fundamentally alter the recurring dynamic: We did not reach full consensus because a few participants drew red lines very close to their initial preferred position, or, in one case, very close to the status quo. Notably, throughout the six meetings of our group, and hundreds of e-mail exchanges, the recurrent pattern was that representatives of the GNSO constituencies were far more willing to make compromises than were the participants not representing constituencies. I believe that the constituency representatives, on their own, might well have achieved consensus.<ref name="wggcr" /></blockquote>

At [[ICANN 70]], [[Bertrand de la Chapelle]] participated in an ALAC session on "Reimagining ICANN’s Role; Responding to National Pressures."<ref>[https://70.schedule.icann.org/meetings/BkrH93jYyy6z56xEn ICANN 70 Archive: Reimagining ICANN's Role], March 23, 2021 (registration/login required)</ref> During a conversation about silos and their impact on the [[multistakeholder model]], de la Chapelle recalled the introduction of the two houses approach and offered this critique of the mindset of the working group participants:

At [[ICANN 70]], [[Bertrand de la Chapelle]] participated in an ALAC session on "Reimagining ICANN’s Role; Responding to National Pressures."<ref>[https://70.schedule.icann.org/meetings/BkrH93jYyy6z56xEn ICANN 70 Archive: Reimagining ICANN's Role], March 23, 2021 (registration/login required)</ref> During a conversation about silos and their impact on the [[Multistakeholder Model|multistakeholder model]], de la Chapelle recalled the introduction of the two houses approach and offered this critique of the mindset of the working group participants:

<blockquote>...I participated in one of the calls that led to the restructuring of the GNSO and the creation of the two houses. If I can give a very frank assessment from the outside, I immediately felt that the main objective of the different entities and the different soon-to-become houses was to make sure one thing: that the other halves could not impose anything on them, period. Nothing was about how can we make it better so that we can solve problems together? I’m caricaturing a little bit, but I can tell you this was the feeling that I had exactly at the moment the proposal was made on the call. And I feel that it has remained a little bit in this way.<ref>[https://cdn.filestackcontent.com/content=t:attachment,f:%22I70CUN-Tue23Mar2021__At-Large%20Policy%20Sess-ICANN%20MultiS%20Model-New%20Legiss%20and%20Regs%20Chall%20and%20Opps-en.pdf Transcript of "Reimagining ICANN's Role"], March 23, 2021 (registration/login required)</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>...I participated in one of the calls that led to the restructuring of the GNSO and the creation of the two houses. If I can give a very frank assessment from the outside, I immediately felt that the main objective of the different entities and the different soon-to-become houses was to make sure one thing: that the other halves could not impose anything on them, period. Nothing was about how can we make it better so that we can solve problems together? I’m caricaturing a little bit, but I can tell you this was the feeling that I had exactly at the moment the proposal was made on the call. And I feel that it has remained a little bit in this way.<ref>[https://cdn.filestackcontent.com/content=t:attachment,f:%22I70CUN-Tue23Mar2021__At-Large%20Policy%20Sess-ICANN%20MultiS%20Model-New%20Legiss%20and%20Regs%20Chall%20and%20Opps-en.pdf Transcript of "Reimagining ICANN's Role"], March 23, 2021 (registration/login required)</ref></blockquote>