<html>
<body>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">From: Roberto Gaetano
<roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com><br>
To: 'Alan Greenberg' <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, 'Alice
Jansen'<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<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>
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: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2<br>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 12:42:10 +0200<br>
<br>
I realize now that I did not answer the last question:<br>
Without a threat hanging over heads, can the process work? Even as
Roberto suggests, with F2F meeting and professional
facilitation.<br><br>
I do not have the perfect answer, but I can say a couple of things.<br>
As I commented before, the ultimate decision has to come from the Board,
and if the WG does not come to a conclusion within the (clearly set in
advance, not decided abruptly) time frame, the Board has free hands in
the decision. The threat is, in this case, that it is not known in
advance what the Board would decide. This means that it would be
ethically incorrect for Directors to speak with third parties about
matters on which a PDP is ongoing, to avoid trumping the PDP itself.<br>
The second point is a bit more complicated. Having been the co-chair of
VI-WG I might be biased, but I strongly believe that it was not a lost
cause to come to a more meaningful consensus than the one we have
reached. The strategy that Mikey and myself had, once it was clear that
we were starting running in circles without much progress, was on one
hand to “surprise” the WG by trying to propose views of the problem from
a different angle (some remember attempts that were funny, but serious,
like the atoms-molecules) and on the other hand logging the minimum
common consensus, i.e. what we could present in a report as a step
forward, although minimal. I hoped that, once participants could get out
from a paradigm, some progress could be achieved, and on the other hand
that, if minimum result was achieved, that we could think of a second run
to try to get a refinement. ICANN has used professional facilitators in
several occasions during meetings, so it should not be a problem to have
this kind of support.<br>
I do remember the energy and the participation when we met F2F. There is
also another element that has to be taken into account (and I speak from
my experience of former Chair of the DNSO-GA): when people are meeting in
person, they do not have the reactions that produce, for instance,
inflammatory emails: there are less chances to be misunderstood, the body
language helps completing the information flow, people that are normally
shy can say a few words in small groups bringing new ideas, … Yes, I
strongly believe that with more F2F and professional facilitation we
would have had substantial progress.<br>
Cheers,<br>
R.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Da:</b> Alan Greenberg
[<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" eudora="autourl">
mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>] <br>
<b>Inviato:</b> venerdì 9 agosto 2013 01:06<br>
<b>A:</b> Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight';
rickert@anwaelte.de; mike@haven2.com; 'Chuck Gomes'; jbladel@godaddy.com;
'Paul Diaz'; jeff.neuman@neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria'<br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley';
'Brian Cute'<br>
<b>Oggetto:</b> Re: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2<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><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>
</blockquote></body>
</html>