[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 19

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:29:51 UTC 2013

>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>From: Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com>
>Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 14:14:14 -0500
>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>, 
> "jbladel at godaddy.com" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, "'Paul
>  Diaz'" <pdiaz at pir.org>, "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 REALLY strongly agree with Chuck's idea.
>On Aug 9, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" 
><<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>>Regarding the issue of Board ultimatums, I have 
>>felt for some time that most of the Board 
>>members and some senior staff do not have a 
>>very good appreciation for the working group 
>>process.  Moreover, I don’t think it there is 
>>an effective way to get a reasonable 
>>appreciation if you haven’t participated in 
>>one.  So I wonder whether we should suggest 
>>that all Board members and executive staff 
>>should participate in at least one WG.  I 
>>understand that they have a heavy workload and 
>>I respect that but even if they were to 
>>participate on the WG list and attend at least 
>>25% of the meetings every two months, I think 
>>they would be in a lot better position to make decisions regarding PDP results.
>>From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike at haven2.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 7:51 PM
>>To: Alan Greenberg
>>Cc: Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele 
>>Neylon - Blacknight'; 
>><mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>rickert at anwaelte.de; 
>>  Gomes, Chuck; 
>><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>jbladel at godaddy.com; 
>>  'Paul 
>>Diaz';<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
>>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.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 (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.)
>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/d0def9d7/attachment.html>

More information about the atrt2 mailing list