[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 13

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:23:37 UTC 2013

>From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
>To: Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com>
>CC: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, 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"
>         <rickert at anwaelte.de>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com>,
>         "jbladel at godaddy.com" 
> <jbladel at godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz at pir.org>,
>         "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
>Thread-Topic: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>Thread-Index: AQHOlJIjWjS0qj0k+EWGpSOx5GhqaJmMF7hz
>Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 01:33:21 +0000
>Accept-Language: en-US
>Some good discussions are taking place here and 
>I wish I had the time to devote to the lengthy 
>emails.  I just noticed the discussion board 
>ultimatums and although there have been some 
>positive views expressed on them, I believe that 
>they have failed to produce anything even 
>remotely useful in policy development.  In fact, 
>they have had a much worse effect than letting 
>things play out in a working group.  The VI 
>ultimatums actually in my view caused what was 
>heading towards a workable compromise to fall 
>flat on its face and prevent that emerging 
>consensus from coming through.  Worse yet, the 
>Board resolution, which was ultimately 
>implemented, and will be in practice soon, will 
>demonstrate how bad of a job the top down 
>decision actually was (in my view).  But that is a whole separate story
>  I will be happy to explain on the call exactly 
> what happened as the chair of the ATRT remembers quite well (sorry Brian).
>Also Alan with PEDNR although you remember what 
>happened during the PDP, what has not come out 
>of this discussion was the fact that none of the 
>contracted parties felt the issue merited a PDP 
>in the first place.  But with the incredibly 
>small thresholds to start a PDP, the PDP 
>began.  Perhaps one could argue that the PDP 
>should never have started in the first place (an 
>argument for higher thresholds).  You can't 
>force a multi stakeholder process to work when 
>many of the stakeholder have no incentive or 
>desire to address an issue. So, it was not 
>surprising at all when the PDP dragged on and 
>took forever to get just a small outcome, and 
>that the parties were not incented to come to a compromise.
>I have many other thoughts, but again a lack of 
>time to document, so I welcome the calls to 
>discuss the issues. And by the way, I continue 
>to believe that the PDP process is not 
>broken.  And I also believe that the VI process, 
>or for that matter, and policy process related 
>to the new gTLDs are not the ones we should use 
>to judge the PDP. Finally, we cannot forget that 
>the formal PDP is not and should not be the only 
>way for policy development in the GNSO.
>Sent from my iPad
>On Aug 8, 2013, at 7:51 PM, "Mike O'Connor" 
><<mailto:mike at haven2.com>mike at haven2.com> wrote:
>>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:
>>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.
>>>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 
>>>>don’t reach consensus” – I’ll 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,
>>>>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.d 
>>>>e; <mailto:mike at haven2.com>mike at haven2.com; 
>>>>Chuck Gomes; 
>>>><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>jbladel at godaddy.co 
>>>>m; 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 (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: +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/20130810/69c20c4c/attachment.html>

More information about the atrt2 mailing list