[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 -- 
>(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?
>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?
>>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: 
>>>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