[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 26

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:33:57 UTC 2013

>From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
>To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>, '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" <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>
>Subject: RE: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:19:29 +0000
>Well said Roberto.  I can’t help but make a 
>non-constructive comment by pointing out that 
>you are dating yourself when you refer to the 
>“Name Council’, the name of the GNSO Council 
>under the original DNSO.  For those that don’t 
>know, Roberto has been involved since before 
>ICANN was formed in 1998, so he has a wealth of experience.
>From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 5:46 AM
>To: 'Mike O'Connor'; 'Alan Greenberg'
>Cc: 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon - 
>Blacknight'; rickert at anwaelte.de; Gomes, Chuck; 
>jbladel at godaddy.com; 'Paul Diaz'; 
>jeff.neuman at neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria'; 'Marika 
>Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
>Subject: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>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 that’s 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.
>In summary:
>- 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'; 
><mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>rickert at anwaelte.de; 
>'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'; '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,
>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
>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/20130810/74400aaa/attachment.html>

More information about the atrt2 mailing list