[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 04
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:19:01 UTC 2013
>Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 07:17:47 -0400
>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>From: Brian Cute <brianacute at gmail.com>
>To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>CC: Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com>, 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>
>
>Alan and Mikey,
>
>A few thoughts to add that I hope provide focus
>for Mikey and the WG Chairs prior to our
>interaction. Among the concerns ATRT2 has heard
>during its data gathering phase (which we are
>still in), are: 1) that certain stakeholders
>have not been able to adequately participate -
>that could be a "structural issue" or it could
>be a "sufficient representation" issue or both;
>and 2) that there has been manipulation of the
>PDP process (from Yoav during the GNSO
>interaction in Durban). He did not that his
>allegations go back 2 years or longer and he has
>been asked to provide data on that
>point. Personally, I draw no conclusions from
>Yoav's statements and will not until we see data
>on those points. I think Mikey hits on a couple
>of important issues regarding chartering the PDP
>and "schedule pressure" and I hope Mikey and
>other WG Chairs can elaborate on those points -
>and others that address the effectiveness (or
>not) of the PDP. Personally, I am not sure that
>the question "is the PDP broken" is actually the
>best question to focus on in assessing the
>process. Even if that is a question put to the
>ATRT2, I don't think we have seen enough data at
>this point to draw any conclusions on it. I
>hope this is helpful and look forward to input from the WG Chairs.
>
>Regards,
>Brian
>
>
>On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Alan Greenberg
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>A couple of more thought Mikey (and again, they are mine).
>
>When you are thinking about how to get more
>people involved (and up the very steep learning
>curve of what some of these issues are about -
>even the "simple" ones tend to have a lot of
>complex wrinkles), consider those who do not
>have any sponsor to pay their way and give them
>a bunch of meetings to start to feel at home. Of
>the people we get appointed to the ALAC, only a
>minority really take to ICANN and the policy
>process. And getting people involved who have
>never seen an ICANN meeting, or see one every N
>years, has not proven very successful.
>
>The undefined "public interest" is not going to
>go away. How do we make sure it is being addressed in PDPs?
>
>In my mind, the new PDP process is a good
>improvement, but most of the changes were
>actually in place (or we were moving there)
>before the new process was adopted. So I think
>the change you are seeing is a gradual
>improvement of the process used, and not really
>due to the new Bylaw words and such (not to
>minimize the importance of some things such as
>the preliminary Issue Report, but I don't think
>that is why we are doing better. It is not the
>IRTP or Locking PDPs that are the challenge. We
>understand how to do those. It is the difficult
>ones that we need to do better. It remains to be
>seen what is going to come out of the IGO/INGO
>PDP, and when we get to the next Whois/Directory
>Services one, things may get challenging again.
>And ones with large $ involved, with both sides
>present at the table, are going to be real hard.
>
>So I don't think the PDP is "broken". But how it
>is executed needs to be modified to meet the more challenging of situations.
>
>Alan
>
>
>At 07/08/2013 11:42 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>>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: <tel:%2B32%20289%20474%2003>+32 289 474 03
>>>>>Mobile: <tel:%2B32%204%2073%2031%2076%2056>+32 4 73 31 76 56
>>>>>Skype: alice_jansen_icann
>>>>>Email: <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>alice.jansen at icann.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>PHONE: <tel:651-647-6109>651-647-6109, FAX:
>>>><tel:866-280-2356>866-280-2356, WEB:
>>>><http://www.haven2.com/>www.haven2.com,
>>>>HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>>
>>
>>PHONE: <tel:651-647-6109>651-647-6109, FAX:
>><tel:866-280-2356>866-280-2356, WEB:
>><http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
>>OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>>
>
>Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="2e11bd8.jpg"; x-mac-type=4A504547;
> x-mac-creator=4A565752
>Content-ID: <.0>
>X-Attachment-Id: d1614b4666f98c90_0.1
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130810/ccbeec98/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: b068d3.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 73086 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130810/ccbeec98/b068d3.jpg>
More information about the atrt2
mailing list