[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 09
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:22:29 UTC 2013
>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>From: Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com>
>Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:26:18 -0500
>CC: Brian Cute <brianacute at gmail.com>, "James M. Bladel"
> <jbladel at godaddy.com>, Alan Greenberg
> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, "Alice
> Jansen" <alice.jansen at icann.org>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight
> <michele at blacknight.com>,
> "rickert at anwaelte.de" <rickert at anwaelte.de>, "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>
>To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
>
>i'm with Chuck on this. i also assumed that
>this was open and have no problem with my comments being posted publicly.
>
>m
>
>On Aug 8, 2013, at 11:19 AM, "Gomes, Chuck"
><<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
>>Thanks for noting that Brian. What is the
>>easiest way to forward the strings of messages
>>to the ATRT2 that have been missed? I for one
>>had assumed it included the ATRT2 but didn’t
>>check & I am fine for it to be open.
>>
>>Chuck
>>
>>From: Brian Cute [mailto:brianacute at gmail.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 11:02 AM
>>To: Gomes, Chuck
>>Cc: James M. Bladel; Alan Greenberg; Mike
>>O'Connor; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon -
>>Blacknight;
>><mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>rickert at anwaelte.de;
>> Paul
>>Diaz;<mailto:roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com;
>><mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz>jeff.neuman at neustar.biz;
>>Avri Doria; Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute
>>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>>
>>Thank you to everyone for your thoughts and
>>contributions. A point of order: I just
>>checked and it does not appear that this
>>conversation is taking place in the open - I
>>didn't see the ATRT2 email address above which
>>means this is a closed conversation (unless I
>>missed it, in which case never mind). ATRT2
>>work is open as a default and this entire
>>thread should be made available on that list --
>>and if this good conversation continues, should
>>continue there. I don't know why it wasn't
>>open. If any contributor has a reservation
>>about their prior inputs being made public, we
>>are obliged to do so. If you do, please note
>>that and Staff can have your comments removed.
>>
>>My apologies for the oversight.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Brian
>>
>>
>>On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Gomes, Chuck
>><<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>>I confess to sitting back and simply
>>appreciating all the good contributions that
>>are being made on this. And I sincerely
>>believe they are good and constructive. My
>>compliments to all of you who have contributed.
>>
>>I decided I would jump in and hopefully be constructive as well.
>>
>>In the last couple months as we in the RySG,
>>including the NTAG, have been grappling with
>>finalizing details related to RPMs, TMCH, PDT &
>>PIC DRP implementation details, I’ve realized
>>that we (RySG/NTAG) have worked within our own
>>silo too long and that we could have been more
>>effective and probably saved timed if we
>>involved people from other silos sooner. Let
>>me use the RPM issue as an example because a
>>comment period has just been opened on
>>that. In Durban we reached out to some
>>representatives of the IPC and had what I
>>thought was a very productive exchange
>>regarding the RPM issues we were working
>>on. Ideally, I think we should have done that
>>sooner and I believe that that is a key
>>opportunity for improvement in both policy and
>>implementation efforts going forward.
>>
>>There is lots of criticism of silos and I get
>>that but I don’t think silos are bad. A silo
>>is simply a group of common interests. We need
>>those and it is helpful to have silos to
>>formulate impacts to policy and implementation
>>issues related to their particular
>>interests. The problem is not silos but rather
>>that we restrict ourselves to our silos too
>>long. I am becoming convinced that we need to
>>discover ways to work together across silos sooner in our processes.
>>
>>Many of you have heard me say that I don’t
>>think that changing processes or structure will
>>help us much if we do not change behavior. In
>>addition to all the ideas each of you have
>>communicated, I think that we need to focus
>>directly on how we can improve our
>>collaboration across silos earlier. That would
>>mean of course that each of us in our silos
>>would need to accept the fact that
>>collaboration is essential to the success of
>>the multi-stakeholder model, but that is easier
>>said than done. It is important for each silo
>>to clearly communicate its positions and
>>collectively for us to identify our
>>differences, but then we need to come together
>>and seek ways that we can compromise to come up
>>with solutions that most can support even when
>>they do not get everything they wanted. Is
>>that doable? I don’t know but I hope so.
>>
>>Chuck
>>
>>From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:37 AM
>>To: Alan Greenberg
>>Cc: Mike O'Connor; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon
>>- Blacknight;
>><mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>rickert at anwaelte.de;
>> Gomes, Chuck; Paul Diaz;
>><mailto:roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com;<mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz>jeff.neuman at neustar.biz;
>>Avri Doria; Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute
>>
>>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>>
>>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 (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<http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>http<http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>://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: <x-msg://1485/tel:%2B32%20289%20474%2003>+32 289 474 03
>>Mobile: <x-msg://1485/tel:%2B32%204%2073%2031%2076%2056>+32 4 73 31 76 56
>>Skype: alice_jansen_icann
>>Email: <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>alice.jansen at icann.org
>>
>>
>>PHONE:
>><x-msg://1485/tel:651-647-6109>651-647-6109,
>>FAX:
>><x-msg://1485/tel:866-280-2356>866-280-2356,
>>WEB: <http://www.haven2.com/>www.haven2.com,
>>HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>>
>>
>>
>>PHONE:
>><x-msg://1485/tel:651-647-6109>651-647-6109,
>>FAX:
>><x-msg://1485/tel:866-280-2356>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/20130810/434081ac/attachment.html>
More information about the atrt2
mailing list