[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 09

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:22:29 UTC 2013

>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>From: Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com>
>Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:26:18 -0500
>CC: Brian Cute <brianacute at gmail.com>, "James M. Bladel"
>         <jbladel at godaddy.com>, Alan Greenberg 
> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, "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>
>To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
>i'm with Chuck on this.  i also assumed that 
>this was open and have no problem with my comments being posted publicly.
>On Aug 8, 2013, at 11:19 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" 
><<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>>Thanks for noting that Brian.  What is the 
>>easiest way to forward the strings of messages 
>>to the ATRT2 that have been missed?  I for one 
>>had assumed it included the ATRT2 but didn’t 
>>check & I am fine for it to be open.
>>From: Brian Cute [mailto:brianacute at gmail.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 11:02 AM
>>To: Gomes, Chuck
>>Cc: James M. Bladel; Alan Greenberg; Mike 
>>O'Connor; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon - 
>><mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>rickert at anwaelte.de; 
>>  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
>>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 
>>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 
>>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: <x-msg://1485/tel:%2B32%20289%20474%2003>+32 289 474 03
>>Mobile: <x-msg://1485/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
>>WEB: <http://www.haven2.com/>www.haven2.com, 
>>HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>>WEB: <http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, 
>>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/20130810/434081ac/attachment.html>

More information about the atrt2 mailing list