[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 27

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:34:25 UTC 2013

>From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
>To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>, 'Mike O'Connor'
>         <mike at haven2.com>
>CC: '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" <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 14:22:21 +0000
>Excellent point.
>From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 10:19 AM
>To: 'Mike O'Connor'; Gomes, Chuck
>Cc: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele 
>Neylon - Blacknight'; rickert at anwaelte.de; 
>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
>I also agree – never disagree with the co-chair, 
>never disagree with the keyboard player.
>However, I wonder whether this should not be 
>extended to other bodies in ICANN.
>I have the impression, for instance, that some 
>of the frictions with the GAC come from the 
>failure to understand the PDP, as basic tool for policy development.
>I understand that GAC representatives cannot 
>actively participate to policy development – 
>they would otherwise undermine their right to 
>intervene later on on the developed policy, and 
>they cannot take positions in the WGs without 
>consultation with their governments – but 
>nothing prevents the possibility to have them as silent observers.
>Da: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike at haven2.com]
>Inviato: venerdì 9 agosto 2013 21:14
>A: Gomes, Chuck
>Cc: Alan Greenberg; Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice 
>Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'; 
><mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>rickert at anwaelte.de; 
><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 REALLY strongly agree with Chuck's idea.
>On Aug 9, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" 
><<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>Regarding the issue of Board ultimatums, I have 
>felt for some time that most of the Board 
>members and some senior staff do not have a very 
>good appreciation for the working group 
>process.  Moreover, I don’t think it there is an 
>effective way to get a reasonable appreciation 
>if you haven’t participated in one.  So I wonder 
>whether we should suggest that all Board members 
>and executive staff should participate in at 
>least one WG.  I understand that they have a 
>heavy workload and I respect that but even if 
>they were to participate on the WG list and 
>attend at least 25% of the meetings every two 
>months, I think they would be in a lot better 
>position to make decisions regarding PDP results.
>From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike at haven2.com]
>Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 7:51 PM
>To: Alan Greenberg
>Cc: Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele 
>Neylon - Blacknight'; 
><mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>rickert at anwaelte.de; 
>Gomes, Chuck; 
><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>jbladel at godaddy.com; 
>Diaz';<mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz>jeff.neuman at neustar.biz; 
>'Avri Doria'; 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. 
>Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
>Subject: 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; 
>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.)
>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/ee2db999/attachment.html>

More information about the atrt2 mailing list