Dear Alejandro,

thanks for this. Since we're having increased transparency, I'll also increase understanding and respond to your concerns. You say:
"I find the draft lacking in understanding the necessary tensions in the non-commercial space, and in not making an analysis of the effects of increasing structural complexity on the GNSO in general."

Quoting from the ALAC Statement:

"Whilst the ALAC support almost all of the recommendations made in the Westlake Report, the ALAC is concerned that the vast majority of the recommendations focus on GNSO Working Groups and suggest making small adjustments rather than taking a serious look at the GNSO’s bicameral structure.

Indeed, the Westlake Report, in reviewing the BGC’s recommendations from the first GNSO Review comes to a conclusion which the ALAC finds hasty and poorly researched:

"BGC Recommendations 10 and 11. (Restructure Council membership and councillor term limits)

Observations
The Council was restructured following the BGC recommendations. Term limits were introduced at the same time. The Council appears functional. It is constructed to balance the various interests.

Analysis
The current structure has been implemented relatively recently. It is not broken, and we do not recommend any change at this time."

The ALAC is surprised with this Analysis.

Numerous areas need to be reviewed and below includes a few examples:
• The current structure of the GNSO Council provides the ability for a more united vote in the Contracted Parties House whilst fragmenting the Non-Contracted Parties house to the point of imbalance.
• In contract, the unprecedented growth of Contracted Parties caused by the new gTLD Program has not been addressed. What might have been a homogeneous Stakeholder Group might now be more heterogeneous and the potential consequences of this change have not been studied. For example, City TLDs are an entirely new breed of registry; so are Brand TLDs. How does this affect the current status quo? How would city administrators, businesses, and people using City TLDs have their voice heard in GNSO processes?
• What would be the consequence of adding more stakeholders/constituencies in either Contracted Party House or Non-Contracted Party House? The ALAC notes that there are strong indications that none of the stakeholders within the Non-Contracted Party House seem to want new group.
• Other commenters in the At-Large Community have noted that the proposals for more geographically balanced representation appeared to be focused on finding new participants from outside the GNSO’s usual territory. A question to ask is how many gTLD registries and gTLDs are domiciled both legally and operationally in each of the ICANN regions both before and after the recent expansion of gTLD space under the GNSO's auspices. The Westlake Review misses on the opportunity to potentially reveal a hidden pattern that the ICANN GNSO is self-reinforcing the domain name business geopolitically. Westlake’s observation that the GNSO’s constituencies concentrate in North America and Europe may underpin such hidden pattern.
• GNSO Working Groups are open for all participants including non-GNSO Constituency members, but the GNSO Council, thanks to its very structure, has the ability to affect a Working Group’s results. Voting is one of the ways to support or halt recommendations from a bottom-up PDP.

The ALAC believes that the complex issues of GNSO structure and processes need to be studied now. The ALAC reminds the Reviewers of the At-Large Future Challenges Working Group R3 White Paper (http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-01oct12-en.htm) drafted in 2012 and containing proposals that should be explored.

Several ALAC members recall that during the first GNSO Review, it was understood that Constituencies and the creation of “Stakeholder Groups” were going to be reviewed at the next iteration. Tragically, this is missing from the current report.

To be clear, the ALAC is disappointed that the review has not evaluated to what extent the current GNSO Structure meets the GNSO and ICANN needs. The structure, with contracted parties representing half of the Council voting power, was invented as a result of the last GNSO review, prior to the New gTLD Program and before registries could own registrars. The ALAC is very concerned that the current structure may not be able to adequately address issues where the public interest is in conflict with the interests of contracted parties. This is essential in light of:
• ICANN's increased focus on the Public Interest;
• the increased desire and need to be demonstrably accountable; and
• the recommendations of the Policy and Implementation WG which will require ALL policy issues to go back to the GNSO for resolution instead of being addressed at the Board level where Board members have a duty to balance stakeholder desires vs the Public Interest."

--- end of quote ---

I really do not believe it is for the ALAC to make an analysis of the effects of increasing structural complexity on the GNSO in general. ICANN is paying a consultant a lot of money and the ALAC Statement says that it is the consultant that should do this job.

As for "understanding the necessary tensions in the non-commercial space", I am unsure as to what you are referring to and would appreciate help here. The ALAC Statement is alleging the Contracted House is more stable than the Non-Contracted House. It hasn't got to do with commercial or non-commercial space. If I have missed something, please explain, so we can point to it in the future. (it's too late for this Statement now)

Thanks!

Olivier


On 03/08/2015 23:58, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:
Olivier,

I'm speaking about the ALAC draft.

But look, something good has happened: at least one ALAC member has spoken out explaining her position. Transparency welcome.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

 

+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 

Desde: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl@gih.com]
Enviado el: lunes, 03 de agosto de 2015 16:53
Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org
CC: Vanda Scartezini
Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-en] FW: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization

Dear Alejandro,

thanks for your kind note. Which draft are you speaking about? The Westlake draft or the ALAC Statement draft?
Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 03/08/2015 20:44, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:
Olivier,

I find the draft lacking in understanding the necessary tensions in the non-commercial space, and in not making an analysis of the effects of increasing structural complexity on the GNSO in general. 

Alejandro Pisanty

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

 

+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 

Desde: lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl@gih.com]
Enviado el: lunes, 03 de agosto de 2015 08:43
Hasta: lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org
CC: Vanda Scartezini
Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-en] FW: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization

Hello all,

let me make this quite clear from the outset: ALAC members are asked to vote on the Statement, not on the GNSO Review Report. The ALAC Statement mentions the points it agrees with in the GNSO Review report. It mentions the points it does not agree with and is pretty strong on criticising the Consultants about the fact it completely missed the opportunity to evaluate the GNSO Structure. The ALAC response is pretty clear about that.
The call for comments was made on 15 July. The only ALAC member from LAC that commented was Vanda and her views were taken into account. The only other LACRALO member that commented was Carlton Samuels and his views were also taken into account.

In formulating the ALAC response, I unfortunately received no other input from LACRALO members, despite requests for feedback.

Kind regards,

Olivier

On 03/08/2015 15:18, cveraq@gmail.com wrote:
[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]

 Subject: Re: FW: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization 
 From: cveraq@gmail.com

 Vanda: if you say "I intend to vote in Please though I personally believe, and HAD Such statement made, That the review itself was really weak and did not touch Relevant several points." 


 It sounds contradictory and the vote should be against? 


 Carlos Vera Quintana 
 0988141143 
 Sguemecveraq 



El 2/8/2015, a las 19:39, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com> escribió:

I intend to vote in favor though I personally believe, and had made such statement, that the review itself was really weak and did not touch several relevant points. 

[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/6e497ab67c.html
--]]





_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-en mailing list
lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en



-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html


-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html