[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 06
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:20:47 UTC 2013
>From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
>To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, 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>, 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>
>Subject: RE: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 14:26:46 +0000
>I confess to sitting back and simply
>appreciating all the good contributions that are
>being made on this. And I sincerely believe
>they are good and constructive. My compliments
>to all of you who have contributed.
>I decided I would jump in and hopefully be constructive as well.
>In the last couple months as we in the RySG,
>including the NTAG, have been grappling with
>finalizing details related to RPMs, TMCH, PDT &
>PIC DRP implementation details, Ive realized
>that we (RySG/NTAG) have worked within our own
>silo too long and that we could have been more
>effective and probably saved timed if we
>involved people from other silos sooner. Let me
>use the RPM issue as an example because a
>comment period has just been opened on that. In
>Durban we reached out to some representatives of
>the IPC and had what I thought was a very
>productive exchange regarding the RPM issues we
>were working on. Ideally, I think we should
>have done that sooner and I believe that that is
>a key opportunity for improvement in both policy
>and implementation efforts going forward.
>There is lots of criticism of silos and I get
>that but I dont think silos are bad. A silo is
>simply a group of common interests. We need
>those and it is helpful to have silos to
>formulate impacts to policy and implementation
>issues related to their particular
>interests. The problem is not silos but rather
>that we restrict ourselves to our silos too
>long. I am becoming convinced that we need to
>discover ways to work together across silos sooner in our processes.
>Many of you have heard me say that I dont think
>that changing processes or structure will help
>us much if we do not change behavior. In
>addition to all the ideas each of you have
>communicated, I think that we need to focus
>directly on how we can improve our collaboration
>across silos earlier. That would mean of course
>that each of us in our silos would need to
>accept the fact that collaboration is essential
>to the success of the multi-stakeholder model,
>but that is easier said than done. It is
>important for each silo to clearly communicate
>its positions and collectively for us to
>identify our differences, but then we need to
>come together and seek ways that we can
>compromise to come up with solutions that most
>can support even when they do not get everything
>they wanted. Is that doable? I dont know but I hope so.
>From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com]
>Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:37 AM
>To: Alan Greenberg
>Cc: Mike O'Connor; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon
>- Blacknight; rickert at anwaelte.de; Gomes, Chuck;
>Paul Diaz; roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com;
>jeff.neuman at neustar.biz; Avri Doria; Marika
>Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute
>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>Sorry for the delay, just getting up to speed on
>this thread. A few thoughts/reactions:
>- I agree with Mikey's overall point that we
>need to invest heavily in "onboarding" new
>participants. The veterans have to be
>answerable to their overlords, and the folks
>paying the bills want to see their
>representatives "move up" in the ICANN food
>chain, as it helps justify the continued costs
>(including opportunity) associated with
>participation in this beast. One of the ideas
>we kicked around in the RrSG is an informal
>mentor/protege program, where new blood can be
>assigned to assist a more experienced member for some introductory period....
>- Also agree with Alan that the PDP works, when
>it is used properly. But when it comes to PDPs
>that have "failed," I would point out that in
>many case these involved ICANN over-reaching in
>to areas that are well beyond the technical
>coordination of the DNS. Whenever ICANN looks
>into the mirror and sees a new kind of
>competition authority, or WIPO, or a content
>regulator, or a consumer protection group, then
>you can always count on the resulting PDP to be messy and unsatisfactory.
>- And, frankly, there is a bit of a culture
>problem when it comes to the expected level of
>effort for PDP work. Some participants are, in
>my opinion, only interested in chair warming.
>They attend meetings and calls and speak up when
>it suits them, but to keep PDPs on an aggressive
>schedule folks will occasionally have to do some
>homework (gather data, write a draft, review
>slides/text, lead a subteam). Even on those
>rare occasions when we have sufficient
>participants, it's tough to get everyone pulling on the rope.
>Just my initial thoughts. I look forward to our call.....
>Sent from my iPad
>On Aug 7, 2013, at 23:04, "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:
>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
>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:
>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 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
>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.)
>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