[atrt2] PDP Effectiveness Study

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Jun 22 03:15:30 UTC 2013

Carlos, I will answer you more fully later this 
weekend (I am travelling and have very limited time at the moment).

The next draft is being done by Brian. I will be 
providing a sentence related to the GAC, but not until later tomorrow.


At 6/21/2013 11:00 AM, Carlos Raúl Gutierrez wrote:
>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
><mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com>carlosraulg at gmail.com
>Skype carlos.raulg
>+506 7070 7176
>El 21/06/2013, a las 07:59, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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.
>>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
>>>On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Alan 
>>>Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > wrote:
>>>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.
>>>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: 
>>> <mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org>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
>>> > > <mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>atrt2 at icann.org
>>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >atrt2 mailing list
>>> ><mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>atrt2 at icann.org
>>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >atrt2 mailing list
>>> ><mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>atrt2 at icann.org
>>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>>>atrt2 mailing list
>>><mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>atrt2 at icann.org
>>atrt2 mailing list
>><mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>atrt2 at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130621/775d5b09/attachment.html>

More information about the atrt2 mailing list