[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.
>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.
>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 
>>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: <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: 
>>>>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