[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 03
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:17:28 UTC 2013
>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>From: Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com>
>Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:42:28 -0500
>CC: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>, 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>
>To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Importance: high
>
>hi Alan,
>
>a couple ideas come to mind from your list of questions.
>
>first, another Mikey Picture. this one
>highlights an idea that is emerging for me, but
>not quite fully-baked. i think one key piece
>that's missing from the current policy process
>is an orderly way to bring in New Blood. so our
>current crop of PDP participants is "graduating"
>to other tasks (constituency-leadership,
>new-jobs-with-applicants, expert working-groups,
>whatever) but we aren't filling in the gaps they
>leave with new people who are well-prepared to
>take up the slack. with that in mind, here's my
>Revision Zero picture of the on-ramp for new
>participants and the off-ramp for those of us
>who want to wind down a little bit. there are
>some things i don't like, but this is close enough for jazz.
>
>[]
>
>
>
>it seems to me that we could see a lot of
>benefit from building a deeper pool of people in
>the "contribute" and "lead" layers of all AC/SOs
>if we paid more attention to the onramp for new
>folks (enter -> discover -> learn -> practice),
>and take better advantage of the old-timers by
>having offering corresponding tasks that they
>could help with as they wind down (recruit new
>people, guide them into the parts of ICANN that
>might interest them, help them learn the ropes,
>help them polish their early efforts, assist
>them as they contribute, and mentor the leadership layer).
>
>it also seems to me that there's a completely
>blurry continuum between the "outreach" effort
>and the "policy" effort that's being missed
>right now. my sense is that currently the
>outreach folks don't really know much about the
>policy side and thus aren't meeting with much
>success in bringing people on board in a way
>that they're ready to jump into
>policy-making. meanwhile, i think the policy
>side is being starved for resources (and not
>taking best advantage of the resources that are
>already here). some kind of blending of these
>two functions might be a way to beef up that
>pool of contributors and leaders. i think this
>could be cheap, and rewarding for everybody.
>
>note that this picture isn't just aimed at the
>GNSO. and to that point i think it would be
>helpful if we got better that
>cross-organizational stuff. again, i think
>we're under-utilizing our old-timers. getting
>better at the cross-organizational stuff could also be cheap/fun.
>
>second reaction, since i've been on all the WGs
>you mention Alan (and had a chair role in a
>couple). i think the WG process has gotten a
>LOT better as the GNSO has settled into the new
>PDP that came out of the last Review. the
>trouble is that these changes take time to take
>hold, and we're only now starting to see our
>first complete PDPs out of that new
>process. IRTP, Locking, Thick Whois are good
>examples of pretty-rapid, pretty-good
>efforts. i like those ones where the Council and Board votes are unanimous.
>
>big point: don't be too quick to "fix" the PDP
>just yet -- that's like overwatering a garden or
>over-pruning a bonsai tree. let the core
>process mature a little bit more. pay more
>attention to that which surrounds that core
>policy-making activity for now. plenty of room for improvement there.
>
>Vertical Integration was tough. a lot of you
>were on it. Roberto and i co-chaired it. i
>think that PDP is an exception that proves a few
>of the rules. here are the rules it proved for me:
>
>- charter PDPs carefully. ambiguities in the VI
>charter meant that we had a bit of a hill to
>climb before we could really even get under
>way. a lot of our energy was spent trying to
>out-guess the Board, and the Council's reaction
>to the Board's decisions. it felt to me like a
>double-blind poker game sometimes. i had a
>tough time chairing Fast Flux too -- again, the
>charter wasn't very good. i wrote a pretty
>detailed discussion about the FFlux charter
>which you can read here --
><http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf>http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf
>(note: this was written in 2008, so while there
>are good ideas in there, some things have
>changed since then -- but there's lots of
>role/responsibility discussion that still applies today).
>
>- protect the schedule. i'm still convinced we
>could have arrived at consensus (or rough
>consensus) in VI, had we not been jerked around
>on our schedule the way we were. this is a
>lesson that generalizes nicely to the whole
>new-gTLD program (by the way, that PDP left a
>lot to be desired in terms of implementation
>detail, no?). i think we (all of us) have got a
>lot of lessons to learn about how the schedule
>of the new gTLD program was
>managed. expectations are all over the map. it
>remains, to this very day, a source of
>conflict. my view is that PDPs are especially
>vulnerable to schedule-pressure because it cuts
>off an important
>"let's-take-time-to-figure-this-out" premise
>that underlies consensus decision-making. a
>similar impact to the house-limit on the state of play in a casino.
>
>- keep the "layers" clear. i share the view
>that the bottom of the the bottom-up process
>ought to be where the rigorous discussions,
>leading to precise language, ought to take
>place. non-consensus ("representational")
>layers above (e.g. GNSO Council and Board)
>should either say "yes, good job" or "no, try
>again" but i don't think they are as well
>equipped to actually dive in and chew on the
>details. i think we tend to get into trouble
>when we deviate from that approach. final VI
>point -- the Board really surprised me when it
>gave us that really-short (2-week) deadline at
>the end of VI and then took the decision upon
>itself when we said we couldn't get done that
>fast. while i support the Board's decision, i'm not sure it's a real good one.
>
>see? all that stuff off my chest and now
>there's more oxygen available for our conference
>call. thanks for your points Alan. maybe some
>of the others want to a) add on to this thread or b) ask more questions?
>
>mikey
>
>On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Alan Greenberg
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>>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?
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>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.
>>>
>>>thanks,
>>>
>>>mikey
>>>
>>>
>>>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
>>>><http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh
>>>>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.
>>>>Thanks
>>>>Very best regards
>>>>Alice
>>>>----
>>>>Alice Jansen
>>>>Strategic Initiatives Manager
>>>>ICANN
>>>>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.)
>
>
>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/20130810/af35bcc7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: aefbaf.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 36111 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130810/af35bcc7/aefbaf.jpg>
More information about the atrt2
mailing list