[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 12
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:23:25 UTC 2013
>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>From: Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com>
>Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 18:50:52 -0500
>CC: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>, 'Alice Jansen'
> <alice.jansen at icann.org>, 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'
> <michele at blacknight.com>, <rickert at anwaelte.de>, 'Chuck Gomes'
> <cgomes at verisign.com>,
> <jbladel at godaddy.com>, 'Paul Diaz' <pdiaz at pir.org>,
> <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: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>
>i'm sorry to hear that my VI Senior co-chair
>Roberto won't be able to make the call. is
>there any way to add some options so that he can attend?
>
>several points to amplify about "complicated" WGs:
>
>-- in my view it would be helpful if they were
>chartered with that "complicated" aspect in mind
>(i.e. more resources, healthy dose of senior
>participants, aggressive recruiting,
>facilitation/mediation options available,
>etc.). we may want to think about the upcoming
>Policy and Implementation Working Group in that light.
>
>-- i agree with Roberto (as i always do) -- in
>VI, we made a lot of progress in a face-to-face
>session facilitated by an amateur (me). i take
>the blame for losing a whole lot of ground in a
>face-to-face meeting later in the week where we
>were all tired and shouldn't have been
>meeting. better-planned sessions, held outside
>of the stressful week of an ICANN meeting,
>planned and led by somebody who knew what they
>were doing, might have captured a consensus.
>
>-- i think using Board ultimatums is probably
>not the best way to motivate WGs, especially if
>those rules of engagement are fluid. neither
>the STI nor the GNSO re-org were working-groups,
>so i didn't participate and don't have a direct
>comment. but i've participated in a bunch of
>working groups and none of them have benefited
>by being tinkered with by the Board. the latest
>example is the cross-AC/SO DNS Security and
>Stability Analysis working group. Olivier can fill you in on the gory details.
>
>-- one of the pieces that was never completed in
>the new GNSO PDP was a self-assessment cycle for
>WGs as they are wrapping up. the Standing
>Committee on Improvements is near the end of
>developing that instrument and is planning to
>test it very soon. i think the results of those
>questionnaires will be a big help to other WG
>chairs, and the questions we ask will also give
>chairs a big hint on what they should (and
>shouldn't) be doing. here's a link to the draft
>-- it's likely to change a bit once we've run it through a test cycle:
>
><http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/>http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/
>
>
>On Aug 8, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Alan Greenberg
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>>Roberto, and Mikey and others,
>>
>>A question.
>>
>>On an issue such as VI, where both emotions and
>>investments are heavy, what is the incentive
>>for participants to make concessions and try to find some middle ground.
>>
>>Although it didn't work, perhaps as Mikey
>>identified due to timing and changing
>>time-lines, in the past the incentive has been
>>a Board ultimatum that a compromise be found by
>>a certain date or else, with or else being that
>>the Board will decide and you may not like what
>>they do. It worked with the STI, and also with
>>the GNSO re-org (although perhaps with a questionable outcome in that case).
>>
>>Some Board members have been prepared to do
>>that as they eventually did with VI, but others
>>have said that the only such decisions that the
>>Board should make should be do-no-harm interim
>>decisions and punt back to the GNSO as it has
>>done with the IDO/INGO protection.
>>
>>Without a threat hanging over heads, can the
>>process work? Even as Roberto suggests, with
>>F2F meeting and professional facilitation.
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>At 08/08/2013 06:07 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>>Sorry, I will be unable to make the 14 August
>>>call, I will be available only in the late
>>>evening (CET) that is not one of the option offered.
>>>However, I would like to contribute to the
>>>discussion prior to the call. I have no
>>>problem in having my comments posted publicly.
>>>I will articulate a better contribution
>>>tomorrow, but for the time being I would like to make the following points:
>>>· Agree with Mikey on incentivating more participation by new people
>>>· The charter has to be defined
>>>clearly, but not only it has to be very
>>>clear what will be the process after the
>>>conclusion of the WG (in the VI-WG we spent
>>>hours to discuss what will happen next if we
>>>dont reach consensus Ill elaborate in a
>>>follow up post on why this is important
>>>· On complicated WGs, resources are
>>>necessary, still quoting the VI experience,
>>>much progress has been made in a F2F meeting
>>>· As part of the GNSO Review, we
>>>stated that some resources should be made
>>>available for the WG Chairs this is
>>>important when the WG is complicated I am
>>>sure that in the final report of the GNSO
>>>Review WG we mentioned training for the
>>>Chairpersons, use of facilitators, and so on
>>>· To the best of my knowledge, there
>>>are lessons learned sessions, but there has
>>>never been an effort to share experiences
>>>among WG Chairs or record for the upcoming WGs
>>>what went OK and what went wrong in previous
>>>WGs, successful tricks used, approaches that
>>>brought deadlocks, a.s.o. much is left to
>>>the oral tradition and to the memory of the WG members
>>>· For the certain stakeholders have
>>>not been able to adequately participate
>>>issue, I have my own opinions, it is also
>>>linked with the chair warming issue since
>>>this comment is going to be public, I will
>>>wait until my mind is fresh and I will be able
>>>to articulate my thoughts in a politically correct way
>>>Please be aware that I have not been active in
>>>the PDP process for more than one year, and
>>>therefore I might have raised points that are
>>>currently incorrect or superseded by events.
>>>Best regards,
>>>Roberto
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Da: Alice Jansen [ mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org]
>>>Inviato: mercoledì 7 agosto 2013 15:04
>>>A: Michele Neylon - Blacknight;
>>><mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>rickert at anwaelte.de
>>>; <mailto:mike at haven2.com>mike at haven2.com;
>>>Chuck Gomes;
>>><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>jbladel at godaddy.com
>>>; 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; Alan Greenberg
>>>Cc: Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute
>>>Oggetto: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>>>Priorità: Alta
>>>
>>>
>>>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 (141516 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: +32 289 474 03
>>>Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56
>>>Skype: alice_jansen_icann
>>>Email: <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>alice.jansen at icann.org
>
>
>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/20130810/3116fe57/attachment.html>
More information about the atrt2
mailing list