[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 02
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:16:47 UTC 2013
>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:
>>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:
>>>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 (141516 August) in Los
>>>Angeles. Would you be available - tentatively
>>>on Wednesday, 14 August - to join their
>>>session remotely? Please confirm your
>>>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
>>>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
>>>Email: <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>alice.jansen at icann.org
>>PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB:
>>OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the atrt2