Second GNSO Organizational Review: Difference between revisions

Line 140:

===Public Comment===

Comment on the draft report was collected at public sessions during [[ICANN 53]] in Buenos Aires,<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfm2RH8tkCwL.pdf Transcript Excerpts from GNSO Review Sessions at ICANN 53], June 1 2015</ref> as well as via written submission.<ref name="draftpcrep">[https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en Public Comment Proceeding - GNSO2 Draft Report], Initiated June 1, 2015</ref> Fifteen written comments were received during the comment period.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-gnso-review-draft-26aug15-en.pdf Staff Report on Public Comment Proceeding], August 26, 2015</ref> Westlake "found many comments provided during the Public Comment Period of great value, and elements of our Final Report were modified as a result."<ref name="finalrep">[https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-summary-15sep15-en.pdf Final Report of Independent Examiner, GNSO2], September 15, 2015</ref>

Comment on the draft report was collected at public sessions during [[ICANN 53]] in Buenos Aires,<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfm2RH8tkCwL.pdf Transcript Excerpts from GNSO Review Sessions at ICANN 53], June 1 2015</ref> as well as via written submission.<ref name="draftpcrep">[https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en Public Comment Proceeding - GNSO2 Draft Report], Initiated June 1, 2015</ref> The topic of structure was addressed multiple times, including Westlake's update to the GNSO during its working session on June 21.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule/sun-gnso-working/transcript-gnso-review-21jun15-en.pdf ICANN 53 Archive - GNSO Review Update, GNSO Working Session Transcript], June 21, 2015</ref> The GNSO's meeting with the board during the same working session was focused largely on implementation and process of the [[New gTLD Round]], and there was little mention of the Review.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule/sun-gnso-working/transcript-gnso-board-21jun15-en.pdf ICANN 53 Archive - Transcript, GNSO Meeting with the ICANN Board], June 21, 2015</ref> At a session with the Commercial Stakeholders Group, [[Richard Westlake]] explained the team's approach in response to the large number of comments received about structure:

<blockquote>So what we said was two things. First of all that we are very conscious that structural change can be enormously time-consuming and distracting and in our view would not address the substantive issues which are covered by our 36 recommendations...

...And therefore if anybody is thinking of perhaps taking one card out of that pile of a very complex structure we would caution against doing so until you have agreed among yourselves or had agreed upon you if must something that will replace it that will be certainly no worse. But until that happens it is functioning. It may not be efficient. It may not be simple. It may not please everybody but it probably displeases most people about evenly.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule/tue-csg/transcript-csg-23jun15-en.pdf ICANN 53 Archive - Commercial Stakeholders Group Meeting Transcript], June 23, 2015</ref></blockquote>

Westlake was obligated to provide similar explanations at meetings with the Business Constituency and the Intellectual Property Constituency at ICANN 53. Throughout, he frequently affirmed that, from the outset, Westlake's instructions were to avoid an examination or review of the structure of the GNSO.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule/tue-ipc/transcript-ipc-23jun15-en.html ICANN 53 Archive - Intellectual Property Constituency Meeting Transcript], June 23, 2015</ref><ref name="bcsession">[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule/tue-bc/transcript-bc-23jun15-en.html ICANN 53 Archive - Business Constituency Meeting Transcript], June 23, 2015</ref> In the BC meeting, [[John Berard]] confirmed this in his comment:

<blockquote>I believe it was the Singapore meeting, not the last one but the one before, when Ray Plzak came to the GNSO Council to talk about the start of this review process. Ray made it clear that his intention as the lead board member was for this to be essentially a set of checkboxes reviewing the activities of each of the constituencies and the stakeholder groups to see what they did and where they did it and how they did it and if they get it. And he was clear that there was not to be a structural review aspect to this.<ref name="bcsession" /></blockquote>

Fifteen written comments were also received during the comment period.<ref name="staffrep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-gnso-review-draft-26aug15-en.pdf Staff Report on Public Comment Proceeding], August 26, 2015</ref> Among those written submissions, consensus statements from the BC, the IPC, the ISPCP, and the NOPC, as well as a non-consensus statement from NCUC & NCSG members, all reiterated complaints that were raised in Buenos Aires about the scope and focus of the review.<ref name="listserv">[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/ ICANN.org Listserv Archive - Comments, GNSO2]</ref> Comments submitted by individuals and external organizations echoed those concerns. [[Klaus Stoll]] stated that "As the report does not address the underlying structures and relationships, the recommendations can only seen as bad aids [''sic''] and as markers to an ongoing and deeper discussion."<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00010.html ICANN.org Listserv Archive - Personal Comments of Klaus Stoll], July 30, 2015</ref> [[Edward Morris]], then a member of the GNSO Council, submitted a comment that began in part "...I look forward to working with those in the greater GNSO community and beyond to create an even more robust, effective and efficient governance model than the one we now have. To accomplish that goal the first thing we need to do is to completely disregard the entire Westlake report."<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00013.html ICANN Listserv Archive - Personal Comment of Edward Morris], July 31, 2015</ref> The Brand Registry Group also called out the review as being inconsistent with ICANN's bylaws and the board's directives regarding the review.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00000.html ICANN.org Listserv Archive - BRG response to GNSO2], July 16, 2015</ref> A handful of commenters, including Google, [[INTA]], [[APAC Space]], [[RySG]] and ISOC Kolkata, did not take issue with the scope of the report (although RySG did note that it was clear that there were structural issues to be addressed).<ref name="listserv" />

Westlake "found many comments provided during the Public Comment Period of great value, and elements of our Final Report were modified as a result."<ref name="finalrep">[https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-summary-15sep15-en.pdf Final Report of Independent Examiner, GNSO2], September 15, 2015</ref>

==Final Report==

@@ Line 140: / Line 140: @@
 ===Public Comment===
-Comment on the draft report was collected at public sessions during [[ICANN 53]] in Buenos Aires,<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfm2RH8tkCwL.pdf Transcript Excerpts from GNSO Review Sessions at ICANN 53], June 1 2015</ref> as well as via written submission.<ref name="draftpcrep">[https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en Public Comment Proceeding - GNSO2 Draft Report], Initiated June 1, 2015</ref> Fifteen written comments were received during the comment period.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-gnso-review-draft-26aug15-en.pdf Staff Report on Public Comment Proceeding], August 26, 2015</ref> Westlake "found many comments provided during the Public Comment Period of great value, and elements of our Final Report were modified as a result."<ref name="finalrep">[https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-summary-15sep15-en.pdf Final Report of Independent Examiner, GNSO2], September 15, 2015</ref>
+Comment on the draft report was collected at public sessions during [[ICANN 53]] in Buenos Aires,<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfm2RH8tkCwL.pdf Transcript Excerpts from GNSO Review Sessions at ICANN 53], June 1 2015</ref> as well as via written submission.<ref name="draftpcrep">[https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en Public Comment Proceeding - GNSO2 Draft Report], Initiated June 1, 2015</ref> The topic of structure was addressed multiple times, including Westlake's update to the GNSO during its working session on June 21.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule/sun-gnso-working/transcript-gnso-review-21jun15-en.pdf ICANN 53 Archive - GNSO Review Update, GNSO Working Session Transcript], June 21, 2015</ref> The GNSO's meeting with the board during the same working session was focused largely on implementation and process of the [[New gTLD Round]], and there was little mention of the Review.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule/sun-gnso-working/transcript-gnso-board-21jun15-en.pdf ICANN 53 Archive - Transcript, GNSO Meeting with the ICANN Board], June 21, 2015</ref> At a session with the Commercial Stakeholders Group, [[Richard Westlake]] explained the team's approach in response to the large number of comments received about structure:
+<blockquote>So what we said was two things. First of all that we are very conscious that structural change can be enormously time-consuming and distracting and in our view would not address the substantive issues which are covered by our 36 recommendations...
+...And therefore if anybody is thinking of perhaps taking one card out of that pile of a very complex structure we would caution against doing so until you have agreed among yourselves or had agreed upon you if must something that will replace it that will be certainly no worse. But until that happens it is functioning. It may not be efficient. It may not be simple. It may not please everybody but it probably displeases most people about evenly.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule/tue-csg/transcript-csg-23jun15-en.pdf ICANN 53 Archive - Commercial Stakeholders Group Meeting Transcript], June 23, 2015</ref></blockquote>
+Westlake was obligated to provide similar explanations at meetings with the Business Constituency and the Intellectual Property Constituency at ICANN 53. Throughout, he frequently affirmed that, from the outset, Westlake's instructions were to avoid an examination or review of the structure of the GNSO.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule/tue-ipc/transcript-ipc-23jun15-en.html ICANN 53 Archive - Intellectual Property Constituency Meeting Transcript], June 23, 2015</ref><ref name="bcsession">[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2015/en/schedule/tue-bc/transcript-bc-23jun15-en.html ICANN 53 Archive - Business Constituency Meeting Transcript], June 23, 2015</ref> In the BC meeting, [[John Berard]] confirmed this in his comment:
+<blockquote>I believe it was the Singapore meeting, not the last one but the one before, when Ray Plzak came to the GNSO Council to talk about the start of this review process. Ray made it clear that his intention as the lead board member was for this to be essentially a set of checkboxes reviewing the activities of each of the constituencies and the stakeholder groups to see what they did and where they did it and how they did it and if they get it. And he was clear that there was not to be a structural review aspect to this.<ref name="bcsession" /></blockquote>
+Fifteen written comments were also received during the comment period.<ref name="staffrep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-gnso-review-draft-26aug15-en.pdf Staff Report on Public Comment Proceeding], August 26, 2015</ref> Among those written submissions, consensus statements from the BC, the IPC, the ISPCP, and the NOPC, as well as a non-consensus statement from NCUC & NCSG members, all reiterated complaints that were raised in Buenos Aires about the scope and focus of the review.<ref name="listserv">[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/ ICANN.org Listserv Archive - Comments, GNSO2]</ref> Comments submitted by individuals and external organizations echoed those concerns. [[Klaus Stoll]] stated that "As the report does not address the underlying structures and relationships, the recommendations can only seen as bad aids [''sic''] and as markers to an ongoing and deeper discussion."<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00010.html ICANN.org Listserv Archive - Personal Comments of Klaus Stoll], July 30, 2015</ref> [[Edward Morris]], then a member of the GNSO Council, submitted a comment that began in part "...I look forward to working with those in the greater GNSO community and beyond to create an even more robust, effective and efficient governance model than the one we now have. To accomplish that goal the first thing we need to do is to completely disregard the entire Westlake report."<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00013.html ICANN Listserv Archive - Personal Comment of Edward Morris], July 31, 2015</ref> The Brand Registry Group also called out the review as being inconsistent with ICANN's bylaws and the board's directives regarding the review.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00000.html ICANN.org Listserv Archive - BRG response to GNSO2], July 16, 2015</ref> A handful of commenters, including Google, [[INTA]], [[APAC Space]], [[RySG]] and ISOC Kolkata, did not take issue with the scope of the report (although RySG did note that it was clear that there were structural issues to be addressed).<ref name="listserv" />
+Westlake "found many comments provided during the Public Comment Period of great value, and elements of our Final Report were modified as a result."<ref name="finalrep">[https://www.icann.org/zh/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-summary-15sep15-en.pdf Final Report of Independent Examiner, GNSO2], September 15, 2015</ref>
 ==Final Report==