<html>
<body>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 07:17:47
-0400<br>
Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2<br>
From: Brian Cute <brianacute@gmail.com><br>
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca><br>
CC: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>, Alice Jansen
<alice.jansen@icann.org>,<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Michele
Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>,
"rickert@anwaelte.de"<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<rickert@anwaelte.de>, Chuck Gomes
<cgomes@verisign.com>,<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
"jbladel@godaddy.com" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz
<pdiaz@pir.org>,<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
"roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com"
<roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>,<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><br>
Alan and Mikey,<br><br>
A few thoughts to add that I hope provide focus for Mikey and the WG
Chairs prior to our interaction. Among the concerns ATRT2 has heard
during its data gathering phase (which we are still in), are: 1) that
certain stakeholders have not been able to adequately participate - that
could be a "structural issue" or it could be a "sufficient
representation" issue or both; and 2) that there has been
manipulation of the PDP process (from Yoav during the GNSO interaction in
Durban). He did not that his allegations go back 2 years or longer
and he has been asked to provide data on that point. Personally, I
draw no conclusions from Yoav's statements and will not until we see data
on those points. I think Mikey hits on a couple of important issues
regarding chartering the PDP and "schedule pressure" and I hope
Mikey and other WG Chairs can elaborate on those points - and others that
address the effectiveness (or not) of the PDP. Personally, I am not
sure that the question "is the PDP broken" is actually the best
question to focus on in assessing the process. Even if that is a
question put to the ATRT2, I don't think we have seen enough data at this
point to draw any conclusions on it. I hope this is helpful and
look forward to input from the WG Chairs.<br><br>
Regards,<br>
Brian<br><br>
<br>
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>A couple of more thought Mikey (and again, they are mine).<br><br>
<dd>When you are thinking about how to get more people involved (and up
the very steep learning curve of what some of these issues are about -
even the "simple" ones tend to have a lot of complex wrinkles),
consider those who do not have any sponsor to pay their way and give them
a bunch of meetings to start to feel at home. Of the people we get
appointed to the ALAC, only a minority really take to ICANN and the
policy process. And getting people involved who have never seen an ICANN
meeting, or see one every N years, has not proven very
successful.<br><br>
<dd>The undefined "public interest" is not going to go away.
How do we make sure it is being addressed in PDPs?<br><br>
<dd>In my mind, the new PDP process is a good improvement, but most of
the changes were actually in place (or we were moving there) before the
new process was adopted. So I think the change you are seeing is a
gradual improvement of the process used, and not really due to the new
Bylaw words and such (not to minimize the importance of some things such
as the preliminary Issue Report, but I don't think that is why we are
doing better. It is not the IRTP or Locking PDPs that are the challenge.
We understand how to do those. It is the difficult ones that we need to
do better. It remains to be seen what is going to come out of the
IGO/INGO PDP, and when we get to the next Whois/Directory Services one,
things may get challenging again. And ones with large $ involved, with
both sides present at the table, are going to be real hard.<br><br>
<dd>So I don't think the PDP is "broken". But how it is
executed needs to be modified to meet the more challenging of
situations.<font color="#888888"><br><br>
<dd>Alan</font><br><br>
<br>
<dd>At 07/08/2013 11:42 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>hi Alan,<br><br>
<dd>a couple ideas come to mind from your list of questions.<br><br>
<dd>first, another Mikey Picture. this one highlights an idea that
is emerging for me, but not quite fully-baked. i think one key
piece that's missing from the current policy process is an orderly way to
bring in New Blood. so our current crop of PDP participants is
"graduating" to other tasks (constituency-leadership,
new-jobs-with-applicants, expert working-groups, whatever) but we aren't
filling in the gaps they leave with new people who are well-prepared to
take up the slack. with that in mind, here's my Revision Zero
picture of the on-ramp for new participants and the off-ramp for those of
us who want to wind down a little bit. there are some things i
don't like, but this is close enough for jazz.<br><br>
<dd>
<img src="cid:7.1.0.9.2.20130810141033.079988a0@mcgill.ca.1" width=500 height=375 alt="[]">
<br><br>
<br>
<dd>it seems to me that we could see a lot of benefit from building a
deeper pool of people in the "contribute" and "lead"
layers of all AC/SOs if we paid more attention to the onramp for new
folks (enter -> discover -> learn -> practice), and take better
advantage of the old-timers by having offering corresponding tasks that
they could help with as they wind down (recruit new people, guide them
into the parts of ICANN that might interest them, help them learn the
ropes, help them polish their early efforts, assist them as they
contribute, and mentor the leadership layer). <br><br>
<dd>it also seems to me that there's a completely blurry continuum
between the "outreach" effort and the "policy" effort
that's being missed right now. my sense is that currently the
outreach folks don't really know much about the policy side and thus
aren't meeting with much success in bringing people on board in a way
that they're ready to jump into policy-making. meanwhile, i think
the policy side is being starved for resources (and not taking best
advantage of the resources that are already here). some kind of
blending of these two functions might be a way to beef up that pool of
contributors and leaders. i think this could be cheap, and
rewarding for everybody.<br><br>
<dd>note that this picture isn't just aimed at the GNSO. and to
that point i think it would be helpful if we got better that
cross-organizational stuff. again, i think we're under-utilizing
our old-timers. getting better at the cross-organizational stuff
could also be cheap/fun.<br><br>
<dd>second reaction, since i've been on all the WGs you mention Alan (and
had a chair role in a couple). i think the WG process has gotten a
LOT better as the GNSO has settled into the new PDP that came out of the
last Review. the trouble is that these changes take time to take
hold, and we're only now starting to see our first complete PDPs out of
that new process. IRTP, Locking, Thick Whois are good examples of
pretty-rapid, pretty-good efforts. i like those ones where the
Council and Board votes are unanimous.<br><br>
<dd>big point:</b> don't be too quick to "fix" the PDP just yet
-- that's like overwatering a garden or over-pruning a bonsai tree.
let the core process mature a little bit more. pay more attention
to that which surrounds that core policy-making activity for now.
plenty of room for improvement there.<br><br>
<dd>Vertical Integration was tough. a lot of you were on it.
Roberto and i co-chaired it. i think that PDP is an exception that
proves a few of the rules. here are the rules it proved for
me:<br><br>
<dd>- charter PDPs carefully. </b>ambiguities in the VI charter
meant that we had a bit of a hill to climb before we could really even
get under way. a lot of our energy was spent trying to out-guess
the Board, and the Council's reaction to the Board's decisions. it
felt to me like a double-blind poker game sometimes. i had a tough
time chairing Fast Flux too -- again, the charter wasn't very good.
i wrote a pretty detailed discussion about the FFlux charter which you
can read here --
<a href="http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf">
http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf</a> (note: this was written in
2008, so while there are good ideas in there, some things have changed
since then -- but there's lots of role/responsibility discussion that
still applies today).<br><br>
<dd>- protect the schedule. </b>i'm still convinced we could have arrived
at consensus (or rough consensus) in VI, had we not been jerked around on
our schedule the way we were. this is a lesson that generalizes
nicely to the whole new-gTLD program (by the way, that</u> PDP left a lot
to be desired in terms of implementation detail, no?). i think we
(all of us) have got a lot of lessons to learn about how the schedule of
the new gTLD program was managed. expectations are all over the
map. it remains, to this very day, a source of conflict. my
view is that PDPs are especially vulnerable to schedule-pressure because
it cuts off an important "let's-take-time-to-figure-this-out"
premise that underlies consensus decision-making. a similar impact
to the house-limit on the state of play in a casino.<br><br>
<dd>- keep the "layers" clear. </b>i share the view that
the bottom of the the bottom-up process ought to be where the rigorous
discussions, leading to precise language, ought to take place.
non-consensus ("representational") layers above (e.g. GNSO
Council and Board) should either say "yes, good job" or
"no, try again" but i don't think they are as well equipped to
actually dive in and chew on the details. i think we tend to get
into trouble when we deviate from that approach. final VI point --
the Board really surprised me when it gave us that really-short (2-week)
deadline at the end of VI and then took the decision upon itself when we
said we couldn't get done that fast. while i support the Board's
decision, i'm not sure it's a real good one.<br><br>
<dd>see? all that stuff off my chest and now there's more oxygen
available for our conference call. thanks for your points
Alan. maybe some of the others want to a) add on to this thread or
b) ask more questions?<br><br>
<dd>mikey<br><br>
<dd>On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>We'll follow up with something that is more than just my opinion, but
here goes with some of my thoughts.<br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>Alan<br><br>
<dd>At 07/08/2013 09:45 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>hi all,<br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>thanks,<br><br>
<dd>mikey<br><br>
<br>
</font>
<dd>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="">
<dd>Dear All,<br>
<dd>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>
<dd> 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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>Thanks<br>
<dd>Very best regards<br>
<dd>Alice <br>
<dd>----<br>
<dd>Alice Jansen<br>
<dd>Strategic Initiatives Manager<br>
<dd>ICANN<br>
</b>
<dd>Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1<br>
<dd>B-1040 Brussels, Belgium<br>
</i>
<dd>Office: <a href="tel:%2B32%20289%20474%2003">+32 289 474 03</a><br>
<dd>Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B32%204%2073%2031%2076%2056">+32 4 73 31 76
56</a><br>
<dd>Skype: alice_jansen_icann<br>
<dd>Email:
<a href="mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org">alice.jansen@icann.org</a>
</blockquote><br><br>
<dd>PHONE: <a href="tel:651-647-6109">651-647-6109</a>, FAX:
<a href="tel:866-280-2356">866-280-2356</a>, WEB:
<a href="http://www.haven2.com/">www.haven2.com</a>, HANDLE: OConnorStP
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
</blockquote></blockquote><br><br>
<dd>PHONE: <a href="tel:651-647-6109">651-647-6109</a>, FAX:
<a href="tel:866-280-2356">866-280-2356</a>, WEB:
<a href="http://www.haven2.com">www.haven2.com</a>, HANDLE: OConnorStP
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) <br><br>
</blockquote>
</dl><br>
Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="2e11bd8.jpg";
x-mac-type=4A504547;<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
x-mac-creator=4A565752<br>
Content-ID: <.0><br>
X-Attachment-Id: d1614b4666f98c90_0.1<br><br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>