<html>
<body>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">From: "Gomes, Chuck"
<cgomes@verisign.com><br>
To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>, 'Mike
O'Connor'<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<mike@haven2.com>, 'Alan Greenberg'
<alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca><br>
CC: 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen@icann.org>, 'Michele Neylon -
Blacknight'<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<michele@blacknight.com>, "rickert@anwaelte.de"
<rickert@anwaelte.de>,<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
"jbladel@godaddy.com" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, 'Paul Diaz'
<pdiaz@pir.org>,<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
"jeff.neuman@neustar.biz" <jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>,
'Avri Doria'<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<avri@ella.com>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org>,
"'Larisa B.<br>
Gurnick'" <larisa.gurnick@icann.org>, 'Charla
Shambley'<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<charla.shambley@icann.org>, 'Brian Cute'
<bcute@pir.org><br>
Subject: RE: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2<br>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:19:29 +0000<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Chuck<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> Roberto Gaetano
[<a href="mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 10, 2013 5:46 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Mike O'Connor'; 'Alan Greenberg'<br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight';
rickert@anwaelte.de; Gomes, Chuck; jbladel@godaddy.com; 'Paul Diaz';
jeff.neuman@neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria'; 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B.
Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2<br>
<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
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”.<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
In summary:<br>
- clear timeframe set in advance, extendable if motivated need exists
(i.e.: “we are getting there, we just need more time”)<br>
- if closure with no consensus ball back to Name Council to evaluate
results<br>
- if no reason to believe that another run will solve the issues, ball to
the Board who has the final decision.<br>
Cheers,<br>
Roberto<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Da:</b> Mike O'Connor
<a href="mailto:mike@haven2.com" eudora="autourl">[</a>
mailto:mike@haven2.com<a href="mailto:mike@haven2.com" eudora="autourl">
]</a> <br>
<b>Inviato:</b> venerdì 9 agosto 2013 01:51<br>
<b>A:</b> Alan Greenberg<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon -
Blacknight';
<a href="mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de">rickert@anwaelte.de</a>; 'Chuck
Gomes'; <a href="mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com">jbladel@godaddy.com</a>;
'Paul Diaz';
<a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz">jeff.neuman@neustar.biz</a>;
'Avri Doria'; 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley';
'Brian Cute'<br>
<b>Oggetto:</b> Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
several points to amplify about "complicated" WGs: <br>
<br>
-- 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. <br>
<br>
-- 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.<br>
<br>
-- 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.<br>
<br>
-- 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:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/">
http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
On Aug 8, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<br>
Roberto, and Mikey and others,<br><br>
A question.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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).<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Without a threat hanging over heads, can the process work? Even as
Roberto suggests, with F2F meeting and professional
facilitation.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 08/08/2013 06:07 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:<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" eudora="autourl">
</a><a href="mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
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>
<br>
<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.) <br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>