[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 12

Sat Aug 10 18:23:25 UTC 2013

>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>From: Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com>
>Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 18:50:52 -0500
>CC: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>, 'Alice Jansen'
>         <alice.jansen at icann.org>, 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'
>         <michele at blacknight.com>, <rickert at anwaelte.de>, 'Chuck Gomes'
>         <cgomes at verisign.com>, 
> <jbladel at godaddy.com>, 'Paul Diaz' <pdiaz at pir.org>,
>         <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: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>
>i'm sorry to hear that my VI Senior co-chair 
>Roberto won't be able to make the call.  is 
>there any way to add some options so that he can attend?
>
>several points to amplify about "complicated" WGs:
>
>-- in my view it would be helpful if they were 
>chartered with that "complicated" aspect in mind 
>(i.e. more resources, healthy dose of senior 
>participants, aggressive recruiting, 
>facilitation/mediation options available, 
>etc.).  we may want to think about the upcoming 
>Policy and Implementation Working Group in that light.
>
>-- i agree with Roberto (as i always do) -- in 
>VI, we made a lot of progress in a face-to-face 
>session facilitated by an amateur (me).  i take 
>the blame for losing a whole lot of ground in a 
>face-to-face meeting later in the week where we 
>were all tired and shouldn't have been 
>meeting.  better-planned sessions, held outside 
>of the stressful week of an ICANN meeting, 
>planned and led by somebody who knew what they 
>were doing, might have captured a consensus.
>
>-- i think using Board ultimatums is probably 
>not the best way to motivate WGs, especially if 
>those rules of engagement are fluid.  neither 
>the STI nor the GNSO re-org were working-groups, 
>so i didn't participate and don't have a direct 
>comment.  but i've participated in a bunch of 
>working groups and none of them have benefited 
>by being tinkered with by the Board.  the latest 
>example is the cross-AC/SO DNS Security and 
>Stability Analysis working group.  Olivier can fill you in on the gory details.
>
>-- one of the pieces that was never completed in 
>the new GNSO PDP was a self-assessment cycle for 
>WGs as they are wrapping up.  the Standing 
>Committee on Improvements is near the end of 
>developing that instrument and is planning to 
>test it very soon. i think the results of those 
>questionnaires will be a big help to other WG 
>chairs, and the questions we ask will also give 
>chairs a big hint on what they should (and 
>shouldn't) be doing.  here's a link to the draft 
>-- it's likely to change a bit once we've run it through a test cycle:
>
><http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/>http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/
>
>
>On Aug 8, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>>Roberto, and Mikey and others,
>>
>>A question.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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).
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Without a threat hanging over heads, can the 
>>process work? Even as Roberto suggests, with 
>>F2F meeting and professional facilitation.
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>At 08/08/2013 06:07 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>>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.
>>>However, I would like to contribute to the 
>>>discussion prior to the call. I have no 
>>>problem in having my comments posted publicly.
>>>I will articulate a better contribution 
>>>tomorrow, but for the time being I would like to make the following points:
>>>·         Agree with Mikey on incentivating more participation by new people
>>>·         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
>>>·         On “complicated” WGs, resources are 
>>>necessary, still quoting the VI experience, 
>>>much progress has been made in a F2F meeting
>>>·         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
>>>·         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
>>>·         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
>>>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.
>>>Best regards,
>>>Roberto
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Da: Alice Jansen [ mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org]
>>>Inviato: mercoledì 7 agosto 2013 15:04
>>>A: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; 
>>><mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>rickert at anwaelte.de 
>>>; <mailto:mike at haven2.com>mike at haven2.com; 
>>>Chuck Gomes; 
>>><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>jbladel at godaddy.com 
>>>; 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; Alan Greenberg
>>>Cc: Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute
>>>Oggetto: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>>>Priorità: Alta
>>>
>>>
>>>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://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.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130810/3116fe57/attachment.html>