<html>
<body>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">From: Roberto Gaetano
<roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com><br>
To: 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen@icann.org>, 'Michele Neylon -
Blacknight'<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<michele@blacknight.com>, <rickert@anwaelte.de>,
<mike@haven2.com>, "'Chuck<br>
Gomes'" <cgomes@verisign.com>,
<jbladel@godaddy.com>, 'Paul Diaz'<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<pdiaz@pir.org>, <jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>, 'Avri Doria'
<avri@ella.com>,<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>'Alan
Greenberg' <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca><br>
CC: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org>, "'Larisa B.
Gurnick'"<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<larisa.gurnick@icann.org>, 'Charla Shambley'
<charla.shambley@icann.org>,<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>'Brian
Cute' <bcute@pir.org><br>
Subject: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2<br>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 16:12:59 +0200<br>
Thread-Index: AQIHQzpoViB7WhzGdQkLWv+WPUgapQHgC1jsmQ4KK8A=<br><br>
After the previous discussion, I need to elaborate only on these
points:<br>
· Agree with Mikey on
incentivating more participation by new people<br>
· 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<br>
· 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<br>
<br>
The first and last points are connected, so let me start with the easy
one, the lessons learned.<br>
As far as I know, but I might be wrong, while a post mortem session is
generally held at the end of a WG, there is little coordination among
WGs, except for the synthesis made in the Name Council.<br>
It might be useful to have cross-WG sessions, like a meeting of the WG
Chairs, past, present, and candidate future, to share experiences and
tricks. This can be done as an ad-hoc session every ICANN meeting, for
instance. If the suggestion of a facilitator is accepted, the
facilitator(s) should participate to the session, to understand what are
the main issues and problems that are encountered in running WGs. Of
course, the sessions shall be open, so that we can be transparent about
the issues and also take the benefit of contributions by the
audience.<br>
Maybe we could try to assess the PDP taking a frame of reference, like
for instance the Capability Maturity Model (CMM or CMMI) and check which
are the process areas that need more attention. Incidentally, CMMI
certification for the policy development process could be an excellent
marketing tool.<br>
<br>
About participation, I agree with Mikey that we should incentivate new
people. However, maybe we should first analyse the composition of the WGs
and check whether there are any stakeholder groups (in the broad sense)
that are insufficiently represented (or insufficiently active, if we take
the point about the “chair warming” issue). While it is always good to
have a new generation of participants, before studying incentives to
ensure participation of new people we should check whether we have
chronic absence of some voices, and rectify this problem first.<br>
I would like also to be clear about the “chair warming”: I am not at all
in favour of people volounteering just to add a line on the CV or, worse,
to get a free ticket to some meeting. However, there are situations in
which we need to accept people in an observer role, i.e. people who will
listen but might not contribute much. Not everybody has the same
approach. Not everybody is ready to jump into an overheated arena to
express an opinion that might be heavily criticized.<br>
Last but not least, every participant to a WG representing a component of
the ICANN multi-stakeholder world carries the responsibility of
representing this component. And his/her behavior will “naturally”
contribute to the opinion that the other folks will have about that
component. So, I assume that the part of the ICANN organization, either a
constituency, a stakeholder group, an advisory committee, or other, will
be somewhat (although indirectly) responsible of the behavior of that
individual, and I assume will take a corrective action.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Roberto<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Da:</b> Roberto Gaetano
[<a href="mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com</a>] <br>
<b>Inviato:</b> venerdì 9 agosto 2013 00:07<br>
<b>A:</b> 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight';
'rickert@anwaelte.de'; 'mike@haven2.com'; 'Chuck Gomes';
'jbladel@godaddy.com'; 'Paul Diaz'; 'jeff.neuman@neustar.biz'; 'Avri
Doria'; 'Alan Greenberg'<br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley';
'Brian Cute'<br>
<b>Oggetto:</b> R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2<br>
<br>
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.<br>
However, I would like to contribute to the discussion prior to the call.
I have no problem in having my comments posted publicly.<br>
I will articulate a better contribution tomorrow, but for the time being
I would like to make the following points:<br>
· Agree with Mikey on
incentivating more participation by new people<br>
· 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<br>
· On “complicated” WGs,
resources are necessary, still quoting the VI experience, much progress
has been made in a F2F meeting<br>
· 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<br>
· 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<br>
· 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<br>
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.<br>
Best regards,<br>
Roberto<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Da:</b> Alice Jansen
[<a href="mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org">mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org</a>
] <br>
<b>Inviato:</b> mercoledì 7 agosto 2013 15:04<br>
<b>A:</b> Michele Neylon - Blacknight;
<a href="mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de">rickert@anwaelte.de</a>;
<a href="mailto:mike@haven2.com">mike@haven2.com</a>; Chuck Gomes;
<a href="mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com">jbladel@godaddy.com</a>; Paul Diaz;
<a href="mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com">
roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com</a>;
<a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz">jeff.neuman@neustar.biz</a>;
Avri Doria; Alan Greenberg<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian
Cute<br>
<b>Oggetto:</b> PDP - Discussion with ATRT2<br>
<b>Priorità:</b> Alta<br>
<br><br>
Dear All,<br><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><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><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><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><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><br>
Thanks<br><br>
Very best regards<br><br>
Alice <br><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<i>_</i>icann<br>
Email:
<a href="mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org">alice.jansen@icann.org</a>
</blockquote></body>
</html>