[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
>
>Agree.
>R.
>
>
>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 dont think that it is as necessary in less difficult PDPs.
>
>Chuck
>
>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,
>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'
>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.
>Cheers,
>R.
>
>
>
>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
>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'
>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.
>
>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 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]
>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/bb513ab7/attachment.html>
More information about the atrt2
mailing list