<html>
<body>
Carlos, I was not at the GAC-ATRT session in Beijing, but I have now
reviewed the transcript. I want to focus first on the issue of GAC input
into the GNSO PDP process, and then on Policy vs Implementation.<br><br>
Since we are going to ask for external review of the PDP process with a
particular focus on engaging all stakeholders, I think what we want to
focus on here (at the chartering stage) is not what is not working (there
are plenty of examples, and some of them with opposing needs, for example
the GAC finds it hard to address the "very rapid" GNSO policy
process and others find that the GNSO policy process takes far to long),
but on the desired end point. In my mind, the issue is to find a way that
the GNSO can deliver policy that takes into account the needs of the
entire community of stakeholders. And that, in my mind, implies accepting
input and advice, carefully considering it, and explaining the outcomes
when the end-result does not match with the input.<br><br>
There is no question that input that comes in late in the game may still
be considered, but optimally, input should be received before decisions
are taken and certainly before they are put into operation. If that was
easy to do, we would not still be having this discussion. We are
now in the situation with new gTLDs that is equivalent to a product being
designed, manufactured, shipped, and then recalled. Clearly problems
uncovered during the design process will be easier to fix, and that needs
to be our target, perhaps not completely achievable.<br><br>
We completely agree that constituents, including governments need to be
able to embrace ICANN decisions. That of course does not mean that we can
make everyone happy on each decision, but ICANN needs to decide not to
satisfy stakeholders with careful and thoughtful deliberation, and with
an understanding of the impact of those decisions.<br><br>
On policy vs implementation, my views have shifted over the last few
weeks. I think that the entire current policy vs implementation debate is
a red herring and a diversion. If multi-stakeholderism has any meaning,
there cannot be a sharp line drawn where the multi-stakeholder model
(MSM) suddenly ceases to be important. Certainly, at some level
"implementation" is really just that, the details and mechanics
of moving something from a piece of paper to reality. But that is not how
we are using the term today. To the extent that what we currently call
implementation (that is, everything after the formal policy development
process) is making decision which have substantive impact on what the
final product does or how stakeholders are impacted, we need to maintain
the MSM. <br><br>
If we take the new gTLD program as an example, for reasons of exhaustion
or based on careful thought, many of the PDP recommendations were very
general. Moreover, the PDP came out with "principles" which
implies that there will be substantive decisions made moving to a
real-life implementation. If the PDP Task Force had chosen to specify
things in more details, we would have taken that as "policy".
Since they didn't, it is implementation. But that does not alter the need
for community involvement in the ensuing decisions.<br><br>
Moreover, if we look at the process which took us from the PDP
Recommendations accepted by the Board, to the final launch of the
program, we find that this WAS a consultative process. The entire
community (including the GAC) worked on the many versions of the new gTLD
Applicant Guidebook over a 4 year time-frame.<br><br>
So yes, at some point things become implementation when the mechanics are
put in place. But what we are currently calling implementation is at a
far higher level.<br><br>
Now, there *IS* a difference based on how we do it today.
"Policy" is developed by the GNSO essentially as an independent
exercise with minimal involvement from non-policy staff (although Fadi
has correctly declared that these folks can no longer ignore the
process). Once it moves to today's "implementation", if the
policy has not been specified in excruciating detail, this too needs to
involve the community, perhaps in more of a consultative mode.<br><br>
To decide that there is a stage of "implementation" that is
still making substantive decision about how stakeholders will be
impacted, but is not being done in a consultative or community-based
process, is to disavow the MSM, and that is not something that I think we
want to do.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
<br><br>
At 6/21/2013 11:00 AM, Carlos Raúl Gutierrez wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear Alan,<br><br>
please rewind the recordings of the ATRT2 - GAC meeting in Beijing
and pay close attention the comments of the Australian, Italian and UK
representatives. Every Governmental complain on this issues is on that
record and I don't want to repeat them! Because of the reasons mentioned
there, GAC has been, for all practical purposes, EXCLUDED from the Policy
Development Process. So the results of respective ATRT1 recommendation
(#6) are dismal! Even the late efforts to try to make a semantic
separation between "Policy vs. Implementation" have not been
fully analyzed in ATRT2 yet. <br>
<br>
The way I look at process is rather simple:<br><br>
1. GAC may or may not give input to the process, because of its many many
constraints (too few meetings, too technical approaches of the PDPD, lack
of a fully independent secretariat, etc. etc. etc....). We may have to
analyze the PDP closely with or without GAC, because<br>
2. GAC advices the board when they have to decide on PDP proposals (and
not necessarily earlier)<br>
3. If constituents (Governments included) do not like, and do not embrace
Boards decisions, we are in deep trouble<br>
[4. if on top, public comments periods on particular technical issues, go
about blank without any public comments, it looks even worse]<br><br>
If your proposal for external expert (which I fully support and gave #1
priority) does not consider those "dynamics" and the
"broader picture", including a differentiated approach to each
SO/AC role along the public comment windows, then I´m afraid it will
remain another navel-gazing exercise and pretty ineffective for the
purposes of ATRT2.<br><br>
Another issues I would like to comment on are the following
<ul>
<li>I strongly prefer to use the <b><u>full term
"GNSO-PDP"</u></b>, as it has been this denomination the one
that GAC has been working with ICANN over the last few meetings at least
<li>I also would like to suggest a clearer title, something like
"<b><u>on the accountability and transparency of the
PDP</u></b>" so everybody knows what to expect from the report.
<li>As far as GAC, and based on Michaels comments, we may have to discuss
if this is one of the chapters of the study, or a whole new separate
issue for discussion (or both)
</ul><br>
In any case please send me the actual draft we are discussing as of today
with track changes, so I can see the whole forest again and spend some
more time on it this weekend.<br><br>
Best regards<br><br>
<br>
Carlos Raúl Gutierrez<br>
--<br>
<a href="mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com">carlosraulg@gmail.com</a><br>
Skype carlos.raulg<br>
+506 7070 7176<br><br>
El 21/06/2013, a las 07:59, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> escribió:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I certainly will no go on record
as saying the GAC is ineffective, but I think that we can come up with
wording that will raise the issue of GAC involvement in the PDP process
which needs to include be the process for getting information into the
PDP, and how the PDP treats such input.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 21/06/2013 09:09 AM, Carlos Raul wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">if everything you said is true,
the absolute absence of GAC advice is enough to ring all the bells
Allan!!!!<br>
If GAC is innefective, do we need another GAC model? GA without a
"C"?<br><br>
<br>
<font size=4><b>Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez</b></font><br>
<font color="#000099">Skype carlos.raulg<br>
</font>_________<br>
Apartado 1571-1000<br>
<b>COSTA RICA<br>
</b><br><br>
<br>
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>Lise,
<dd>As I said in the meeting, if we cite the GAC
<dd>explicitly, we will also need to add whether that
<dd>any GAC advice/views were received in a timely manner.
<dd>I did not call out the GAC explicitly when I
<dd>drafted this, because I was aware of the answer.
<dd>On the PDP process that we will be evaluating, I
<dd>do not believe that we have received any GAC
<dd>advice or even, had the benefit of general views
<dd>during the process. There may be some subtle
<dd>examples of views being known, but I can't be
<dd>sure. I cannot recal any intervention of the GAC
<dd>AFTER the PDP was completed and passed to the
<dd>Board where the GAC objected. Perhaps Avri has a memory of such an
occurrence.
<dd>Note that the new gTLD PDP was before the period
<dd>we are reviewing, since it was a completely
<dd>different process, the IGO/INGO PDP is not yet
<dd>completed, and there has been no completed PDP on
<dd>Whois during that period either.<font color="#888888">
<dd>Alan</font>
<dd>At 21/06/2013 05:26 AM, Lise Fuhr wrote:
<dd>>Hi all,
<dd>>
<dd>>I think that Avri´s version changes the focus too much away from
the purpose
<dd>>of Jørgen's text, a purpose that it is my understanding
that there were
<dd>>support to at the conference call.
<dd>>
<dd>>If we only look at GAC's status as defined in ICANN's bylaws the
scope is
<dd>>much narrower and we will not review if there are any needs to
change the
<dd>>bylaws or other processes but only if ICANN is complying to the
existing
<dd>>bylaws in this matter.
<dd>>
<dd>>So I find we should keep Jørgen's wording.
<dd>>
<dd>>Best,
<dd>>Lise
<dd>>
<dd>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
<dd>>Fra:
<a href="mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org">atrt2-bounces@icann.org</a> [
<a href="mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org</a>] På vegne af
<dd>>Avri Doria
<dd>>Sendt: 20. juni 2013 20:21
<dd>>Cc: ATRT2
<dd>>Emne: Re: [atrt2] PDP Effectiveness Study
<dd>>
<dd>>Hi,
<dd>>
<dd>>I would be more comfortable with a more ICANN centric question,
like:
<dd>>
<dd>>- Whether the views of the GAC have been handled appropriately
given their
<dd>>status as defined in the ICANN bylaws.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>avri
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>On 20 Jun 2013, at 12:41, Jørgen C Abild Andersen wrote:
<dd>>
<dd>> > Dear colleagues
<dd>> >
<dd>> > Proposal for a new bullit between 86 and 87 (a 86A):
<dd>> >
<dd>> > - whether in particular the views and advice provided by
GAC has been duly
<dd>>taken into account given the specific tasks of national
governments with
<dd>>respect to public policy.
<dd>> >
<dd>> > Best wishes
<dd>> > Jørgen
<dd>> > _______________________________________________
<dd>> > atrt2 mailing list
<dd>> > <a href="mailto:atrt2@icann.org">atrt2@icann.org</a>
<dd>> >
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2</a>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>_______________________________________________
<dd>>atrt2 mailing list
<dd>><a href="mailto:atrt2@icann.org">atrt2@icann.org</a>
<dd>>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2</a>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>_______________________________________________
<dd>>atrt2 mailing list
<dd>><a href="mailto:atrt2@icann.org">atrt2@icann.org</a>
<dd>>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2</a><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>atrt2 mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:atrt2@icann.org">atrt2@icann.org</a>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2</a></blockquote>
</dl>_______________________________________________<br>
atrt2 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:atrt2@icann.org">atrt2@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2</a></blockquote></blockquote>
</body>
</html>