<html>
<body>
I guess this is a Eureka moment. All we need to do is ensure that we have
few or no people working on a policy, and make sure they have little or
no knowledge. <br><br>
But if that were true, I know of a few WGs that should have completed
there work LONG before they actually did....<br><br>
At 11/12/2013 02:36 PM, Berry Cobb wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">All,<br>
<br>
I’m probably a bit tardy in offering this to the discussion, but it might
at least help inform future deliberations on the topic of time duration
on a PDP. I started drafting a simple formula a while ago and I
suspect a few more variables could be added.<br>
<br>
Duration of a PDP is a function of participation X frequency X complexity
X knowledge<br>
D=PxFxCxK<br>
<br>
Food for thought…….<br>
<br>
B<br>
<br>
Berry Cobb<br>
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)<br>
720.839.5735<br>
<a href="mailto:mail@berrycobb.com">mail@berrycobb.com</a><br>
@berrycobb<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Gomes,
Chuck<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:00<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor;
council@gnso.icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments<br>
<br>
One more thing on this. I was comfortable with the changes in
wording that James & I agreed to previously. What happened to
that?<br>
<br>
Chuck<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">
owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Gomes,
Chuck<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor;
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments<br>
<br>
James,<br>
<br>
I don’t think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of
the other criteria. In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the
root problem, it is the symptom. We could easily make PDPs shorter;
would that solve the problem? We could reduce the time it takes to
do a PDP? Would that be a measure of success? The original
DNSO did that in policy work by having the GNSO Council act as a
legislative body. It’s easy to do things faster in a top-down
management model. I am willing to consider other wording but I have
a serious problem with the wording that is in the latest version
Maria distributed. I think it undermines the other points we
make.<br>
<br>
Chuck<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> James M. Bladel
<a href="mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com" eudora="autourl">[</a>
mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com<a href="mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com" eudora="autourl">
]</a> <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor;
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments<br>
<br>
Chuck:<br>
<br>
I’m not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your
edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the
-lack– of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we
are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this
should be highlighted above the other concerns…<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
J.<br>
<br>
<b>From: </b><Gomes>, Chuck
<<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 <br>
<b>To: </b>Maria Farrell
<<a href="mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com">maria.farrell@gmail.com</a>
><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
>, David Cake
<<a href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au">dave@difference.com.au</a>
>, Mike O'Connor
<<a href="mailto:mike@haven2.com">mike@haven2.com</a>>,
"<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>
"
<<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>
><br>
<b>Subject: </b>RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments<br>
<br>
Thanks Maria. <br>
<br>
Regarding ‘<b>13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways
to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective</b>’:<br>
· I don’t agree with this
statement in the second paragraph: “So while we believe the PDP
should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness is currently the
most pressing.” I don’t think it is the most pressing criterion but
I do believe that is one of several that must be focused on. I
would be much more comfortable if we changed the sentence to something
like this: “So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several
criteria, time-effectiveness needs to be addressed.”<br>
· Along the same line, I
would change the last paragraph as follows: “Additionally we suggest that
while one concern is time-effectiveness and <s>the fact that the</s> PDPs
<s>simply takes too</s>take a lot of time <s>long</s>, reference might be
also made in your recommendations to other, more qualitative measures of
the effectiveness of policy-making; deliberativeness, participation and
support.”<br>
In my opinion, it is critical to focus on all the criteria together
rather than isolating one as the most important. As our other
comments on this suggest, that risks sacrificing qualitative
criteria. Do we want to compromise the bottom-up multi-stakeholder
model to make PDPs more time efficient? I don’t think so. I
believe what we want to do is to find ways to improve time-effectiveness
while still making sure that PDPs are bottom-up and
multi-stakeholder. For example, the qualitative criteria of
participation and support are areas where improvements could be made to
improve time-effectiveness. Finally, I think that categorizing
time-effectiveness as the most pressing criterion is counter to what we
say later in our comments: “we are concerned that speed not be the main
metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO”.<br>
<br>
Chuck<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> Maria Farrell
[<a href="mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com">
mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:26 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor;
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments<br>
<br>
Hi all,<br>
Here's a revised draft response to the ATRT2 recommendations. I've
incorporated all the comments and changed the focus re time-effectiveness
to something I hope is closer to our area of agreement. <br>
If there are more comments between now and the deadline of 23.50 UTC
tonight, I'll work them in tomorrow. <br>
It would be helpful if you can make comments on the new draft, V.3, but
if you're already knee-deep in V.2, then don't worry; just send comments
on that one instead. <br>
Track changes and clean versions attached.<br>
Best, m<br>
<br>
On 11 December 2013 17:02, Gomes, Chuck
<<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
Thanks Alan.<br><br>
Chuck<br><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Alan Greenberg
[<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" eudora="autourl">
mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>]<br>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM<br>
To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake<br>
Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell;
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments<br><br>
I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed
such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not
being prescriptive about.<br><br>
The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We
(the GNSO and community) are making good progress toward coming up with
methodologies which could improve the policy development process, but
many of them will require funding (whether for services, travel or
additional ICANN staff). What we are looking for is a commitment to put
money into the process so that some of these pipe-dreams can become a
reality.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
>Thanks Alan. Regarding the recommendations about using
facilitators,<br>
>did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN
staff,<br>
>community volunteers trained by ICANN or paid service
providers? I<br>
>understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than
one<br>
>the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.<br>
><br>
>Chuck<br>
><br>
>-----Original Message-----<br>
>From: Alan Greenberg
[<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" eudora="autourl">
mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>]<br>
>Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM<br>
>To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck<br>
>Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell;
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
>Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments<br>
><br>
>I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the<br>
>perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the<br>
>recommendation being discussed.<br>
><br>
>First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess.
This<br>
>recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in
the<br>
>body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my
fingers<br>
>crossed) be far more cohesive.<br>
><br>
>The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body
of<br>
>the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve
the<br>
>Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the
final<br>
>recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy
processes<br>
>(not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does
allow<br>
>for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider
deliberations<br>
>as well.<br>
><br>
>On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section
was<br>
>effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped
for)<br>
>by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are
very<br>
>welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more
effectively,<br>
>and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted,
we<br>
>just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up
to<br>
>speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of
getting<br>
>more people involved and not boring those who already understand
the<br>
>basic issues.<br>
><br>
>The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted
in Buenos<br>
>Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this.
The<br>
>current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional
services<br>
>to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for
when<br>
>such options may be invoked. Such services could include training
to<br>
>enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address<br>
>difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation,<br>
>mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being
developed, it<br>
>will likely be further revised.<br>
><br>
>The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and
has been<br>
>incorporated.<br>
><br>
>The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you
to<br>
>get them submitted prior to the deadline.<br>
><br>
>As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also<br>
>looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and
Implementation<br>
>WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a<br>
>substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what
we are<br>
>currently calling "implementation", it could be referred
back to the<br>
>GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways
of<br>
>coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably
delay<br>
>the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we
are talking<br>
>about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.<br>
><br>
>Alan<br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>