[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.
>>
>>Chuck
>>
>>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:
>>
>>
>><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 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,
>>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 (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
>><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.)
>>
>
>
>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