[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 13
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:23:37 UTC 2013
>From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
>To: Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com>
>CC: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, 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"
> <rickert at anwaelte.de>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com>,
> "jbladel at godaddy.com"
> <jbladel at godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz at pir.org>,
> "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
>Thread-Topic: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>Thread-Index: AQHOlJIjWjS0qj0k+EWGpSOx5GhqaJmMF7hz
>Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 01:33:21 +0000
>Accept-Language: en-US
>
>All,
>
>Some good discussions are taking place here and
>I wish I had the time to devote to the lengthy
>emails. I just noticed the discussion board
>ultimatums and although there have been some
>positive views expressed on them, I believe that
>they have failed to produce anything even
>remotely useful in policy development. In fact,
>they have had a much worse effect than letting
>things play out in a working group. The VI
>ultimatums actually in my view caused what was
>heading towards a workable compromise to fall
>flat on its face and prevent that emerging
>consensus from coming through. Worse yet, the
>Board resolution, which was ultimately
>implemented, and will be in practice soon, will
>demonstrate how bad of a job the top down
>decision actually was (in my view). But that is a whole separate story
>
> I will be happy to explain on the call exactly
> what happened as the chair of the ATRT remembers quite well (sorry Brian).
>
>Also Alan with PEDNR although you remember what
>happened during the PDP, what has not come out
>of this discussion was the fact that none of the
>contracted parties felt the issue merited a PDP
>in the first place. But with the incredibly
>small thresholds to start a PDP, the PDP
>began. Perhaps one could argue that the PDP
>should never have started in the first place (an
>argument for higher thresholds). You can't
>force a multi stakeholder process to work when
>many of the stakeholder have no incentive or
>desire to address an issue. So, it was not
>surprising at all when the PDP dragged on and
>took forever to get just a small outcome, and
>that the parties were not incented to come to a compromise.
>
>I have many other thoughts, but again a lack of
>time to document, so I welcome the calls to
>discuss the issues. And by the way, I continue
>to believe that the PDP process is not
>broken. And I also believe that the VI process,
>or for that matter, and policy process related
>to the new gTLDs are not the ones we should use
>to judge the PDP. Finally, we cannot forget that
>the formal PDP is not and should not be the only
>way for policy development in the GNSO.
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>Sent from my iPad
>
>On Aug 8, 2013, at 7:51 PM, "Mike O'Connor"
><<mailto:mike at haven2.com>mike at haven2.com> wrote:
>
>>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.d
>>>>e; <mailto:mike at haven2.com>mike at haven2.com;
>>>>Chuck Gomes;
>>>><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>jbladel at godaddy.co
>>>>m; 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/20130810/69c20c4c/attachment.html>
More information about the atrt2
mailing list