[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 07

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:21:20 UTC 2013

>Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:01:39 -0400
>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>From: Brian Cute <brianacute at gmail.com>
>To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
>CC: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, Alan Greenberg
>         <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, 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>
>Thank you to everyone for your thoughts and 
>contributions.  A point of order: I just checked 
>and it does not appear that this conversation is 
>taking place in the open - I didn't see the 
>ATRT2 email address above which means this is a 
>closed conversation (unless I missed it, in 
>which case never mind).  ATRT2 work is open as a 
>default and this entire thread should be made 
>available on that list -- and if this good 
>conversation continues, should continue 
>there.  I don't know why it wasn't open.  If any 
>contributor has a reservation about their prior 
>inputs being made public, we are obliged to do 
>so.  If you do, please note that and Staff can have your comments removed.
>My apologies for the oversight.
>On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Gomes, Chuck 
><<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>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, I’ve 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 don’t 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; 
><mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>rickert at anwaelte.de; 
>Gomes, Chuck; Paul Diaz; 
><mailto:roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com; 
><mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz>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:
>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: <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.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130810/f4adaf1f/attachment.html>

More information about the atrt2 mailing list