[atrt2] PDP Effectiveness Study

Fri Jun 21 15:00:03 UTC 2013

Dear Alan,

please rewind the recordings of the ATRT2  - GAC meeting in Beijing and pay close attention the comments of the Australian, Italian and UK representatives. Every Governmental complain on this issues is on that record and I don't want to repeat them! Because of the reasons mentioned there, GAC has been, for all practical purposes, EXCLUDED from the Policy Development Process. So the results of respective ATRT1 recommendation (#6) are dismal! Even the late efforts to try to make a semantic separation between "Policy vs. Implementation" have not been fully analyzed in ATRT2 yet. 

The way I look at process is rather simple:

1. GAC may or may not give input to the process, because of its many many constraints (too few meetings, too technical approaches of the PDPD, lack of a fully independent secretariat, etc. etc. etc....). We may have to analyze the PDP closely with or without GAC, because
2. GAC advices the board when they have to decide on PDP proposals (and not necessarily earlier)
3. If constituents (Governments included) do not like, and do not embrace Boards decisions, we are in deep trouble
[4. if on top, public comments periods on particular technical issues, go about blank without any public comments, it looks even worse]

If your proposal for external expert (which I fully support and gave #1 priority) does not consider those "dynamics" and the "broader picture", including a differentiated approach to each SO/AC role along the public comment windows, then I´m afraid it will remain another navel-gazing exercise and pretty ineffective for the purposes of ATRT2.

Another issues I would like to comment on are the following
I strongly prefer to use the full term "GNSO-PDP", as it has been this denomination the one that GAC has been working with ICANN over the last few meetings at least
I also would like to suggest a clearer title, something like "on the accountability and transparency of the PDP" so everybody knows what to expect from the report.
As far as GAC, and based on Michaels comments, we may have to discuss if this is one of the chapters of the study, or a whole new separate issue for discussion (or both)

In any case please send me the actual draft we are discussing as of today with track changes, so I can see the whole forest again and spend some more time on it this weekend.

Best regards

Carlos Raúl Gutierrez
--
carlosraulg at gmail.com
Skype carlos.raulg
+506 7070 7176

El 21/06/2013, a las 07:59, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> escribió:

> I certainly will no go on record as saying the GAC is ineffective, but I think that we can come up with wording that will raise the issue of GAC involvement in the PDP process which needs to include be the process for getting information into the PDP, and how the PDP treats such input.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 21/06/2013 09:09 AM, Carlos Raul wrote:
>> if everything you said is true, the absolute absence of GAC advice is enough to ring all the bells Allan!!!!
>> If GAC is innefective, do we need another GAC model? GA without a "C"?
>> 
>> 
>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>> Skype   carlos.raulg
>> _________
>> Apartado 1571-1000
>> COSTA RICA
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > wrote:
>> Lise,
>> As I said in the meeting, if we cite the GAC
>> explicitly, we will also need to add whether that
>> any GAC advice/views were received in a timely manner.
>> I did not call out the GAC explicitly when I
>> drafted this, because I was aware of the answer.
>> On the PDP process that we will be evaluating, I
>> do not believe that we have received any GAC
>> advice or even, had the benefit of general views
>> during the process. There may be some subtle
>> examples of views being known, but I can't be
>> sure. I cannot recal any intervention of the GAC
>> AFTER the PDP was completed and passed to the
>> Board where the GAC objected. Perhaps Avri has a memory of such an occurrence.
>> Note that the new gTLD PDP was before the period
>> we are reviewing, since it was a completely
>> different process, the IGO/INGO PDP is not yet
>> completed, and there has been no completed PDP on
>> Whois during that period either.
>> Alan
>> At 21/06/2013 05:26 AM, Lise Fuhr wrote:
>> >Hi all,
>> >
>> >I think that Avri´s version changes the focus too much away from the purpose
>> >of Jørgen's text, a purpose that it  is my understanding that there were
>> >support to at the conference call.
>> >
>> >If we only look at GAC's status as defined in ICANN's bylaws the scope is
>> >much narrower and we will not review if there are any needs to change the
>> >bylaws or other processes but only if ICANN is complying to the existing
>> >bylaws in this matter.
>> >
>> >So I find we should keep Jørgen's wording.
>> >
>> >Best,
>> >Lise
>> >
>> >-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
>> >Fra: atrt2-bounces at icann.org [ mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org] På vegne af
>> >Avri Doria
>> >Sendt: 20. juni 2013 20:21
>> >Cc: ATRT2
>> >Emne: Re: [atrt2] PDP Effectiveness Study
>> >
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >I would be more comfortable with a more ICANN centric question, like:
>> >
>> >- Whether the views of the GAC have been handled appropriately given their
>> >status as defined in the ICANN bylaws.
>> >
>> >
>> >avri
>> >
>> >
>> >On 20 Jun 2013, at 12:41, Jørgen C Abild Andersen wrote:
>> >
>> > > Dear colleagues
>> > >
>> > > Proposal for a new bullit between 86 and 87 (a 86A):
>> > >
>> > > - whether in particular the views and advice provided by GAC has been duly
>> >taken into account given the specific tasks of national governments with
>> >respect to public policy.
>> > >
>> > > Best wishes
>> > > Jørgen
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > atrt2 mailing list
>> > > atrt2 at icann.org
>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >atrt2 mailing list
>> >atrt2 at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >atrt2 mailing list
>> >atrt2 at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> atrt2 mailing list
>> atrt2 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
> _______________________________________________
> atrt2 mailing list
> atrt2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130621/2086c503/attachment.html>