[atrt2] Fwd: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Aug 7 19:49:51 UTC 2013

Any comment on to what extent other ATRT members 
feel I am on-target, or off-base would be welcome.


>Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 11:39:12 -0400
>To: Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>
>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>Cc: Michele Neylon - Blacknight 
><michele at blacknight.com>, "rickert at anwaelte.de" 
><rickert at anwaelte.de>, Chuck Gomes 
><cgomes at verisign.com>, "jbladel at godaddy.com" 
><jbladel at godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz 
><pdiaz at pir.org>, "roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com" 
><roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>, 
>"jeff.neuman at neustar.biz" 
><jeff.neuman at neustar.biz>, Avri Doria 
><avri at ella.com>, Marika Konings 
><marika.konings at icann.org>, "Larisa B. Gurnick" 
><larisa.gurnick at icann.org>, Charla Shambley 
><charla.shambley at icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute at pir.org>
>We'll follow up with something that is more than 
>just my opinion, but here goes with some of my thoughts.
>1. There is little question that the current PDP 
>can work well (ie all sides represented in the 
>process and sound balanced policy as an outcome) 
>in some instances. I think the current IRTP PDPs 
>and Lock are fine illustrations. All parties 
>working in good faith to find a common ground.
>2. Vertical Integration is one of the PDPs that 
>attracts the most attention. Some people think 
>that a deadlock is a reasonable outcome, given 
>that it highlights the issues and punts to the 
>Board to make the decision. Other feel the Board 
>should never need to make such a decision, and 
>at best (and I am paraphrasing one Board member 
>during the Durban ATRT-Board interaction) the 
>Board should take an interim do-no-harm decision 
>and then push back to the GNSO.
>3. You know I will raise PEDNR as another 
>example. It took far too long to produce 
>relatively little. I personally think that it 
>was a very poor use of time and did not meet the 
>original goals and is a good example of the 
>inability to attract sufficient non-contracted 
>parties to a PDP unless it is very emotionally charged.
>4. If we were to (heaven forbid) re-do the new 
>gTLD policy using the current rules, would be 
>any better at getting something that is not 
>mired in the controversy of the current process.
>The bottom line is that ICANN has a number of 
>responsibilities but setting policy for the gTLD 
>space is the one that it spends the most time on 
>and is essentially a make-or-break function for 
>the organization. Can we rely on the GNSO PDP to 
>make sound policy representing the balanced 
>needs of all stakeholders, both present and not 
>present, and in the public interest?
>At 07/08/2013 09:45 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>>hi all,
>>could somebody unpack this a little 
>>bit?  "whether the current GNSO PDP process 
>>satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder 
>>model and Internet users" is a pretty broad 
>>topic (to put it mildly).  presuming that this 
>>is going to be a 1-hour call, 90 minutes at 
>>most, i would find it helpful if the ATRT2 
>>could come up with 3-4 questions you would like 
>>us to think about and build an agenda from there.
>>On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Alice Jansen 
>><<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>alice.jansen at icann.org> wrote:
>>>Dear All,
>>>It is my understanding that my colleague 
>>>Charla has been touched with you to schedule a 
>>>call with the Second Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2).
>>>  The ATRT2's activities are focused on 
>>> paragraph 9.1 of the AoC where ICANN commits 
>>> to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for 
>>> public input, accountability, and 
>>> transparency so as to ensure that the 
>>> outcomes of its decision-making will reflect 
>>> the public interest and be accountable to all 
>>> stakeholders. As part of its mandate, the 
>>> ATRT has decided to review the effectiveness 
>>> of ICANN Generic Names Supporting 
>>> Organization (GNSO) Policy Development 
>>> Process (PDP) and so determine whether the 
>>> current GNSO PDP process satisfies the needs 
>>> of the multi stakeholder model and Internet 
>>> users. Given your experience and expertise, 
>>> the ATRT2 is interested in hearing your 
>>> thoughts and wishes you to share your unique perspective with them.
>>>The ATRT2 has a face-to-face meeting scheduled 
>>>for next week (14–15–16 August) in Los 
>>>Angeles. Would you be available - tentatively 
>>>on Wednesday, 14 August - to join their 
>>>session remotely? Please confirm your 
>>>availability via 
>>>by Thursday, 8 August – COB.
>>>The Review Team has received your request for 
>>>preparatory materials. Rest assured that we 
>>>will provide you with more information as soon as available.
>>>I look forward to reading your doodle poll 
>>>entries and thank you for your help. Please 
>>>let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
>>>Very best regards
>>>Alice Jansen
>>>Strategic Initiatives Manager
>>>Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1
>>>B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
>>>Office: +32 289 474 03
>>>Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56
>>>Skype: alice_jansen_icann
>>>Email: <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>alice.jansen at icann.org
>>PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: 
>><http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: 
>>OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130807/46aeba4b/attachment.html>

More information about the atrt2 mailing list