[atrt2] PDP Effectiveness Study

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sun Jun 23 00:50:40 UTC 2013

Carlos, I was not at the GAC-ATRT session in 
Beijing, but I have now reviewed the transcript. 
I want to focus first on the issue of GAC input 
into the GNSO PDP process, and then on Policy vs Implementation.

Since we are going to ask for external review of 
the PDP process with a particular focus on 
engaging all stakeholders, I think what we want 
to focus on here (at the chartering stage) is not 
what is not working (there are plenty of 
examples, and some of them with opposing needs, 
for example the GAC finds it hard to address the 
"very rapid" GNSO policy process and others find 
that the GNSO policy process takes far to long), 
but on the desired end point. In my mind, the 
issue is to find a way that the GNSO can deliver 
policy that takes into account the needs of the 
entire community of stakeholders. And that, in my 
mind, implies accepting input and advice, 
carefully considering it, and explaining the 
outcomes when the end-result does not match with the input.

There is no question that input that comes in 
late in the game may still be considered, but 
optimally, input should be received before 
decisions are taken and certainly before they are 
put into operation. If that was easy to do, we 
would not still be having  this discussion. We 
are now in the situation with new gTLDs that is 
equivalent to a product being designed, 
manufactured, shipped, and then recalled. Clearly 
problems uncovered during the design process will 
be easier to fix, and that needs to be our 
target, perhaps not completely achievable.

We completely agree that constituents, including 
governments need to be able to embrace ICANN 
decisions. That of course does not mean that we 
can make everyone happy on each decision, but 
ICANN needs to decide not to satisfy stakeholders 
with careful and thoughtful deliberation, and 
with an understanding of the impact of those decisions.

On policy vs implementation, my views have 
shifted over the last few weeks. I think that the 
entire current policy vs implementation debate is 
a red herring and a diversion. If 
multi-stakeholderism has any meaning, there 
cannot be a sharp line drawn where the 
multi-stakeholder model (MSM) suddenly ceases to 
be important. Certainly, at some level 
"implementation" is really just that, the details 
and mechanics of moving something from a piece of 
paper to reality. But that is not how we are 
using the term today. To the extent that what we 
currently call implementation (that is, 
everything after the formal policy development 
process) is making decision which have 
substantive impact on what the final product does 
or how stakeholders are impacted, we need to maintain the MSM.

If we take the new gTLD program as an example, 
for reasons of exhaustion or based on careful 
thought, many of the PDP recommendations were 
very general. Moreover, the PDP came out with 
"principles" which implies that there will be 
substantive decisions made moving to a real-life 
implementation. If the PDP Task Force had chosen 
to specify things in more details, we would have 
taken that as "policy". Since they didn't, it is 
implementation. But that does not alter the need 
for community involvement in the ensuing decisions.

Moreover, if we look at the process which took us 
from the PDP Recommendations accepted by the 
Board, to the final launch of the program, we 
find that this WAS a consultative process. The 
entire community (including the GAC) worked on 
the many versions of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook over a 4 year time-frame.

So yes, at some point things become 
implementation when the mechanics are put in 
place. But what we are currently calling 
implementation is at a far higher level.

Now, there *IS* a difference based on how we do 
it today. "Policy" is developed by the GNSO 
essentially as an independent exercise with 
minimal involvement from non-policy staff 
(although Fadi has correctly declared that these 
folks can no longer ignore the process). Once it 
moves to today's "implementation", if the policy 
has not been specified in excruciating detail, 
this too needs to involve the community, perhaps 
in more of a consultative mode.

To decide that there is a stage of 
"implementation" that is still making substantive 
decision about how stakeholders will be impacted, 
but is not being done in a consultative or 
community-based process, is to disavow the MSM, 
and that is not something that I think we want to do.


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/20130622/ee432906/attachment.html>

More information about the atrt2 mailing list