[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 17
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:28:04 UTC 2013
>From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, "Gomes, Chuck"
> <cgomes at verisign.com>, "Neuman, Jeff"
> <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, Mike O'Connor
> <mike at haven2.com>
>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"
> <rickert at anwaelte.de>,
> "jbladel at godaddy.com" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz
> <pdiaz at pir.org>, Avri
> Doria <avri at ella.com>, "Larisa B. Gurnick"
> <larisa.gurnick at icann.org>, Charla
> Shambley <charla.shambley at icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute at pir.org>
>Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 08:59:02 -0700
>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>No, as far as I am aware we have never put together a chart of voting
>records, but the information on the votes casts is contained in the
>minutes of the respective Council meeting and could be easily traced if
>On 09/08/13 17:41, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> >Chuck, for an issue that is within the scope of the GNSO, the
> >threshold is 1/3 or each house or 2/3 of one house. That ensures that
> >one or both contracted parties (who may be impacted by the PDP
> >results) cannot veto it. It would be interesting to hear alternatives
> >that still preserve the no-veto concept.
> >That notwithstanding, Marika, have we ever put together a chart of
> >what the voting records really were to initiate PDPs over the last
> >several years?
> >At 09/08/2013 11:10 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >>Regardless of differing personal opinions regarding the PEDNR PDP,
> >>Jeff raises an important question as to whether the threshold for
> >>initiating a PDP is too low. I understand the complications in
> >>answering that question, but it is definitely a valid one to ask.
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
> >>Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 11:19 PM
> >>To: Neuman, Jeff; Mike O'Connor
> >>Cc: Roberto Gaetano; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon - Blacknight;
> >>rickert at anwaelte.de; Gomes, Chuck; jbladel at godaddy.com; Paul Diaz;
> >>Avri Doria; Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian
> >>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
> >>At 08/08/2013 09:33 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> >> >All,
> >> >
> >> >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).
> >>And this Vice Chair as well!
> >> >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 do remember that well. But that just raises the question - how do
> >>you address a picket fence issue when the contracted party/parties
> >>is/are happy with the status quo? But for the record, perhaps due to
> >>interesting politics, the vote to initiate the PDP was unanimous
> >>excluding two absentee ballots that were not returned.
> >> >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.
> >>I for one do not use the term "broken". The question that I think we
> >>need to focus on is how to make the process work for the really
> >>thorny issues. And I agree with your intro. I think this is a really
> >>good discussion and some interesting ideas are coming out of it.
> >> >Thanks.
More information about the atrt2