[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 20
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:30:25 UTC 2013
>From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>
>To: 'Mike O'Connor' <mike at haven2.com>, 'Alan Greenberg'
> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>CC: 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen at icann.org>, 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'
> <michele at blacknight.com>, <rickert at anwaelte.de>, 'Chuck Gomes'
> <cgomes at verisign.com>,
> <jbladel at godaddy.com>, 'Paul Diaz' <pdiaz at pir.org>,
> <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>
>Subject: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 11:45:49 +0200
>Adding to what Mikey has already said, I think
>that what was bad was not that the Board set a
>deadline, but that this deadline came abruptly.
>I recall that we had a lot of time spent
>(wasted, IMHO) trying to second guess what the
>Board would have done in terms of setting a time
>limit, what the default decision of the Board
>would be in case we do not get a consensus, and
>other things that were not directly aiming at reaching a consensus position.
>I believe that the path should be clear and
>known in advance. The Board has all the rights
>to set a (reasonable) deadline in advance, it
>helps the planning of the WG. Of course, the
>deadline can be extended if needed and if
>reasonably motivated (that happened for VI as
>well). What is disruptive is the statement: OK
>guys, we have enough, you have one more week and thats it.
>Another element that is creating problems is
>that it is not clear what happens in case of
>failure to reach consensus. As Alan (if I am not
>mistaken) points out, there are different
>schools of thought on the Board on whether the
>Board will have to make a decision, or whether
>the ball should be punted to GNSO for another round.
>Personally, I favour the former. The ball can go
>back to GNSO Council only if there is legitimate
>and motivated reason to believe that the PDP was
>done badly and that another WG, maybe with a
>different charter, can address the matter
>differently and have more chances to solve the
>issue in a satisfactory way (incidentally, it
>should not be the Board to decide this, but the
>Name Council). But if it is to have another run
>with the same people about the same issue, it
>will be a loss of time. Not only, it will give
>the temptation to the Name Council to solve the
>matter with a vote, absent a PDP, which will be
>a very bad case. If there is no consensus, the
>only authority that can make a decision is the Board.
>I am aware that this will raise some issues:
>some folks, when they see that the PDP is going
>in a direction that does not suits their wishes,
>could decide to stall the PDP and lobby the
>Board instead. This is a risk that we must be
>able to take. Lobbying the Board has always
>happened and will always happen, but in time we
>will be able to grow in the consensus of the
>stakeholders cultural approach to minimize this
>risk. After all, the very reason for ICANN to
>exist is the multi-stakeholder model, and the
>consensus of the stakeholders as legitimation
>for the decisions, so we do not have other
>choice than to go ahead on this path.
>- clear timeframe set in advance, extendable if
>motivated need exists (i.e.: we are getting there, we just need more time)
>- if closure with no consensus ball back to Name Council to evaluate results
>- if no reason to believe that another run will
>solve the issues, ball to the Board who has the final decision.
>Da: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike at haven2.com]
>Inviato: venerdì 9 agosto 2013 01:51
>A: Alan Greenberg
>Cc: Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele
>Neylon - Blacknight'; rickert at anwaelte.de;
>'Chuck Gomes'; jbladel at godaddy.com; 'Paul Diaz';
>jeff.neuman at neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria'; 'Marika
>Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
>Oggetto: 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,
>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 dont reach consensus
>Ill 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.
>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
><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>jbladel at godaddy.com;
><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
>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 (141516 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
>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
>Email: <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>alice.jansen at icann.org
>PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB:
>OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the atrt2