[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 18
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:29:17 UTC 2013
>From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
>To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, "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>, 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
>Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 16:15:39 +0000
>Like I said. It's a good question to discuss, especially if want
>people to be motivated to participate. I don't have any magic answers.
>From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
>Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 11:41 AM
>To: Gomes, Chuck; Neuman, Jeff; Mike O'Connor
>Cc: Roberto Gaetano; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon - Blacknight;
>rickert at anwaelte.de; jbladel at godaddy.com; Paul Diaz; Avri Doria;
>Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute
>Subject: RE: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>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
>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 Cute
> >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