[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 23
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:51:06 UTC 2013
>From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>
>To: 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen at icann.org>, 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'
> <michele at blacknight.com>,
> <rickert at anwaelte.de>, <mike at haven2.com>, "'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>,
> 'Alan Greenberg' <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>CC: '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 16:12:59 +0200
>Thread-Index: AQIHQzpoViB7WhzGdQkLWv+WPUgapQHgC1jsmQ4KK8A=
>
>After the previous discussion, I need to elaborate only on these points:
>· Agree with Mikey on incentivating more participation by new people
>· 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
>
>The first and last points are connected, so let
>me start with the easy one, the lessons learned.
>As far as I know, but I might be wrong, while a
>post mortem session is generally held at the end
>of a WG, there is little coordination among WGs,
>except for the synthesis made in the Name Council.
>It might be useful to have cross-WG sessions,
>like a meeting of the WG Chairs, past, present,
>and candidate future, to share experiences and
>tricks. This can be done as an ad-hoc session
>every ICANN meeting, for instance. If the
>suggestion of a facilitator is accepted, the
>facilitator(s) should participate to the
>session, to understand what are the main issues
>and problems that are encountered in running
>WGs. Of course, the sessions shall be open, so
>that we can be transparent about the issues and
>also take the benefit of contributions by the audience.
>Maybe we could try to assess the PDP taking a
>frame of reference, like for instance the
>Capability Maturity Model (CMM or CMMI) and
>check which are the process areas that need more
>attention. Incidentally, CMMI certification for
>the policy development process could be an excellent marketing tool.
>
>About participation, I agree with Mikey that we
>should incentivate new people. However, maybe we
>should first analyse the composition of the WGs
>and check whether there are any stakeholder
>groups (in the broad sense) that are
>insufficiently represented (or insufficiently
>active, if we take the point about the chair
>warming issue). While it is always good to have
>a new generation of participants, before
>studying incentives to ensure participation of
>new people we should check whether we have
>chronic absence of some voices, and rectify this problem first.
>I would like also to be clear about the chair
>warming: I am not at all in favour of people
>volounteering just to add a line on the CV or,
>worse, to get a free ticket to some meeting.
>However, there are situations in which we need
>to accept people in an observer role, i.e.
>people who will listen but might not contribute
>much. Not everybody has the same approach. Not
>everybody is ready to jump into an overheated
>arena to express an opinion that might be heavily criticized.
>Last but not least, every participant to a WG
>representing a component of the ICANN
>multi-stakeholder world carries the
>responsibility of representing this component.
>And his/her behavior will naturally contribute
>to the opinion that the other folks will have
>about that component. So, I assume that the part
>of the ICANN organization, either a
>constituency, a stakeholder group, an advisory
>committee, or other, will be somewhat (although
>indirectly) responsible of the behavior of that
>individual, and I assume will take a corrective action.
>
>Cheers,
>Roberto
>
>
>
>Da: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com]
>Inviato: venerdì 9 agosto 2013 00:07
>A: 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon -
>Blacknight'; 'rickert at anwaelte.de';
>'mike at haven2.com'; 'Chuck Gomes';
>'jbladel at godaddy.com'; 'Paul Diaz';
>'jeff.neuman at neustar.biz'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Alan Greenberg'
>Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
>Oggetto: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>
>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.
>Best regards,
>Roberto
>
>
>
>Da: Alice Jansen
>[<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>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 (141516 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130810/60a51a79/attachment.html>
More information about the atrt2
mailing list