<html>
<body>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 11:39:12
-0400<br>
To: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>, Alice Jansen
<alice.jansen@icann.org><br>
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca><br>
Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2<br>
Cc: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>,
"rickert@anwaelte.de" <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Chuck Gomes
<cgomes@verisign.com>, "jbladel@godaddy.com"
<jbladel@godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz@pir.org>,
"roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com"
<roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>, "jeff.neuman@neustar.biz"
<jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com>, Marika
Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "Larisa B. Gurnick"
<larisa.gurnick@icann.org>, Charla Shambley
<charla.shambley@icann.org>, Brian Cute
<bcute@pir.org><br><br>
We'll follow up with something that is more than just my opinion, but
here goes with some of my thoughts.<br><br>
1. There is little question that the current PDP can work well (ie all
sides represented in the process and sound balanced policy as an outcome)
in some instances. I think the current IRTP PDPs and Lock are fine
illustrations. All parties working in good faith to find a common
ground.<br><br>
2. Vertical Integration is one of the PDPs that attracts the most
attention. Some people think that a deadlock is a reasonable outcome,
given that it highlights the issues and punts to the Board to make the
decision. Other feel the Board should never need to make such a decision,
and at best (and I am paraphrasing one Board member during the Durban
ATRT-Board interaction) the Board should take an interim do-no-harm
decision and then push back to the GNSO. <br><br>
3. You know I will raise PEDNR as another example. It took far too long
to produce relatively little. I personally think that it was a very poor
use of time and did not meet the original goals and is a good example of
the inability to attract sufficient non-contracted parties to a PDP
unless it is very emotionally charged.<br><br>
4. If we were to (heaven forbid) re-do the new gTLD policy using the
current rules, would be any better at getting something that is not mired
in the controversy of the current process.<br><br>
The bottom line is that ICANN has a number of responsibilities but
setting policy for the gTLD space is the one that it spends the most time
on and is essentially a make-or-break function for the organization. Can
we rely on the GNSO PDP to make sound policy representing the balanced
needs of all stakeholders, both present and not present, and in the
public interest?<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 07/08/2013 09:45 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">hi all,<br><br>
could somebody unpack this a little bit? "whether the current
GNSO PDP process satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder model and
Internet users" is a pretty broad topic (to put it mildly).
presuming that this is going to be a 1-hour call, 90 minutes at most, i
would find it helpful if the ATRT2 could come up with 3-4 questions you
would like us to think about and build an agenda from there.<br>
<font face="Calibri" size=4><br>
thanks,<br><br>
mikey<br><br>
<br>
</font>On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Alice Jansen
<<a href="mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org">alice.jansen@icann.org</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear All,<br>
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).<br>
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.<br>
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
<a href="http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh">
http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh</a> by Thursday, 8 August –
COB. <br>
The Review Team has received your request for preparatory materials. Rest
assured that we will provide you with more information as soon as
available.<br>
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.<br>
Thanks<br>
Very best regards<br>
Alice <br>
<b>----<br>
Alice Jansen<br>
Strategic Initiatives Manager<br>
ICANN<br>
</b><i>Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1<br>
B-1040 Brussels, Belgium<br>
</i>Office: +32 289 474 03<br>
Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56<br>
Skype: alice_jansen_icann<br>
Email:
<a href="mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org">alice.jansen@icann.org</a>
</blockquote><br><br>
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB:
<a href="http://www.haven2.com">www.haven2.com</a>, HANDLE: OConnorStP
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
</blockquote></blockquote></body>
</html>