[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 24

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:51:06 UTC 2013

>From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>
>To: "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes at verisign.com>, 'Alan Greenberg'
>         <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen at icann.org>,
>         "'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'" <michele at blacknight.com>,
>         <rickert at anwaelte.de>, 
> <mike at haven2.com>, <jbladel at godaddy.com>, 'Paul Diaz'
>         <pdiaz at pir.org>, 
> <jeff.neuman at neustar.biz>, 'Avri Doria' <avri at ella.com>
>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: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 16:14:04 +0200
>Da: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
>Inviato: sabato 10 agosto 2013 16:12
>A: Roberto Gaetano; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Alice 
>Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'; 
>rickert at anwaelte.de; mike at haven2.com; 
>jbladel at godaddy.com; 'Paul Diaz'; jeff.neuman at neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria'
>Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
>Oggetto: RE: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>Regarding F2F meetings, it is helpful to recall 
>that there were several F2F meetings held in the 
>New gTLD PDP that I believe were very 
>productive.  In especially complicated PDPs, I 
>think that F2F meetings can be quite helpful but 
>I don’t think that it is as necessary in less difficult PDPs.
>From: Roberto Gaetano 
>[<mailto:roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>mailto:roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 6:42 AM
>To: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele 
>Neylon - Blacknight'; 
><mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>rickert at anwaelte.de; 
><mailto:mike at haven2.com>mike at haven2.com; Gomes, 
><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>jbladel at godaddy.com; 
>'Paul Diaz'; 
><mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz>jeff.neuman at neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria'
>Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
>Subject: R: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>I realize now that I did not answer the last question:
>Without a threat hanging over heads, can the 
>process work? Even as Roberto suggests, with F2F 
>meeting and professional facilitation.
>I do not have the perfect answer, but I can say a couple of things.
>As I commented before, the ultimate decision has 
>to come from the Board, and if the WG does not 
>come to a conclusion within the (clearly set in 
>advance, not decided abruptly) time frame, the 
>Board has free hands in the decision. The threat 
>is, in this case, that it is not known in 
>advance what the Board would decide. This means 
>that it would be ethically incorrect for 
>Directors to speak with third parties about 
>matters on which a PDP is ongoing, to avoid trumping the PDP itself.
>The second point is a bit more complicated. 
>Having been the co-chair of VI-WG I might be 
>biased, but I strongly believe that it was not a 
>lost cause to come to a more meaningful 
>consensus than the one we have reached. The 
>strategy that Mikey and myself had, once it was 
>clear that we were starting running in circles 
>without much progress, was on one hand to 
>“surprise” the WG by trying to propose views of 
>the problem from a different angle (some 
>remember attempts that were funny, but serious, 
>like the atoms-molecules) and on the other hand 
>logging the minimum common consensus, i.e. what 
>we could present in a report as a step forward, 
>although minimal. I hoped that, once 
>participants could get out from a paradigm, some 
>progress could be achieved, and on the other 
>hand that, if minimum result was achieved, that 
>we could think of a second run to try to get a 
>refinement. ICANN has used professional 
>facilitators in several occasions during 
>meetings, so it should not be a problem to have this kind of support.
>I do remember the energy and the participation 
>when we met F2F. There is also another element 
>that has to be taken into account (and I speak 
>from my experience of former Chair of the 
>DNSO-GA): when people are meeting in person, 
>they do not have the reactions that produce, for 
>instance, inflammatory emails: there are less 
>chances to be misunderstood, the body language 
>helps completing the information flow, people 
>that are normally shy can say a few words in 
>small groups bringing new ideas, 
 Yes, I 
>strongly believe that with more F2F and 
>professional facilitation we would have had substantial progress.
>Da: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
>Inviato: venerdì 9 agosto 2013 01:06
>A: Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice Jansen'; '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; 
>'Paul Diaz'; 
><mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz>jeff.neuman at neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria'
>Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
>Oggetto: Re: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>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 
><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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130810/bb513ab7/attachment.html>

More information about the atrt2 mailing list