[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 05
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:19:58 UTC 2013
>From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>CC: Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>,
> Michele Neylon - Blacknight
> <michele at blacknight.com>, "rickert at anwaelte.de"
> <rickert at anwaelte.de>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com>, Paul Diaz
> <pdiaz at pir.org>,
> "roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com" <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>,
> "jeff.neuman at neustar.biz" <jeff.neuman at neustar.biz>, Avri Doria
> <avri at ella.com>, Marika Konings
> <marika.konings at icann.org>, "Larisa B.
> Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick at icann.org>, Charla Shambley
> <charla.shambley at icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute at pir.org>
>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 13:37:15 +0000
>
>
>Sorry for the delay, just getting up to speed on
>this thread. A few thoughts/reactions:
>
>- I agree with Mikey's overall point that we
>need to invest heavily in "onboarding" new
>participants. The veterans have to be
>answerable to their overlords, and the folks
>paying the bills want to see their
>representatives "move up" in the ICANN food
>chain, as it helps justify the continued costs
>(including opportunity) associated with
>participation in this beast. One of the ideas
>we kicked around in the RrSG is an informal
>mentor/protege program, where new blood can be
>assigned to assist a more experienced member for some introductory period....
>
>- Also agree with Alan that the PDP works, when
>it is used properly. But when it comes to PDPs
>that have "failed," I would point out that in
>many case these involved ICANN over-reaching in
>to areas that are well beyond the technical
>coordination of the DNS. Whenever ICANN looks
>into the mirror and sees a new kind of
>competition authority, or WIPO, or a content
>regulator, or a consumer protection group, then
>you can always count on the resulting PDP to be messy and unsatisfactory.
>
>- And, frankly, there is a bit of a culture
>problem when it comes to the expected level of
>effort for PDP work. Some participants are, in
>my opinion, only interested in chair warming.
>They attend meetings and calls and speak up when
>it suits them, but to keep PDPs on an aggressive
>schedule folks will occasionally have to do some
>homework (gather data, write a draft, review
>slides/text, lead a subteam). Even on those
>rare occasions when we have sufficient
>participants, it's tough to get everyone pulling on the rope.
>
>Just my initial thoughts. I look forward to our call.....
>
>Thanks--
>
>J.
>
>Sent from my iPad
>
>On Aug 7, 2013, at 23:04, "Alan Greenberg"
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>>A couple of more thought Mikey (and again, they are mine).
>>
>>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.
>>
>>The undefined "public interest" is not going to
>>go away. How do we make sure it is being addressed in PDPs?
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>At 07/08/2013 11:42 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>>>hi Alan,
>>>
>>>a couple ideas come to mind from your list of questions.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>><2e11bd8.jpg>
>>>
>>>
>>>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).
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>big point: 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.
>>>
>>>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:
>>>
>>>- charter PDPs carefully. 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 --
>>><http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf>http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf
>>>(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).
>>>
>>>- protect the schedule. 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 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.
>>>
>>>- keep the "layers" clear. 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.
>>>
>>>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?
>>>
>>>mikey
>>>
>>>On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Alan Greenberg
>>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > wrote:
>>>
>>>>We'll follow up with something that is more
>>>>than just my opinion, but here goes with some of my thoughts.
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>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?
>>>>
>>>>Alan
>>>>
>>>>At 07/08/2013 09:45 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>>>>>hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>mikey
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Alice Jansen
>>>>><<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>alice.jansen at icann.org > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dear All,
>>>>>>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).
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>The ATRT2 has a face-to-face meeting
>>>>>>scheduled for next week (141516 August)
>>>>>>in Los Angeles. Would you be available -
>>>>>>tentatively on Wednesday, 14 August - to
>>>>>>join their session remotely? Please confirm
>>>>>>your availability via
>>>>>><http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh
>>>>>>by Thursday, 8 August COB.
>>>>>>The Review Team has received your request
>>>>>>for preparatory materials. Rest assured
>>>>>>that we will provide you with more information as soon as available.
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>Thanks
>>>>>>Very best regards
>>>>>>Alice
>>>>>>----
>>>>>>Alice Jansen
>>>>>>Strategic Initiatives Manager
>>>>>>ICANN
>>>>>>Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1
>>>>>>B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
>>>>>>Office: +32 289 474 03
>>>>>>Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56
>>>>>>Skype: alice_jansen_icann
>>>>>>Email: <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>alice.jansen at icann.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB:
>>>>><http://www.haven2.com/>www.haven2.com,
>>>>>HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>>>
>>>
>>>PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB:
>>><http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
>>>OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130810/b60cbdb4/attachment.html>
More information about the atrt2
mailing list