[council] ATRT2 summary

Wed Dec 4 14:47:41 UTC 2013

Thanks Chuck, that’s a really good point and it touches on a key point regarding the scope of the Council.

My sense in this particular case has been that it is mostly about policy management and therefore within the remit of the Council.

In particular, a key point being to make sure that the ATRT2 is aware of the current position from the Council itself (including any efforts on improvement). 

This being more current than the interview input which the ATRT2 has used and may reflect a more historic  / rear-view mirror perspective.

That said, as a point of general principle, I do agree with you that, wherever possible, reference to the relevant groups is highly desirable, often necessary and should be the default position.

Jonathan

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
Sent: 04 December 2013 14:38
To: jrobinson at afilias.info; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] ATRT2 summary

I think we would need a draft in the next couple days to give us time to check with our respective groups.

Chuck

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 9:27 AM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] ATRT2 summary

Thanks Avri & John,

Maria, are you in a position to lead a draft of this asap?

If not, or in any event, are there any other volunteers?

Maria’s preparation work and the recordings / transcripts from our meetings in BA will provide the material.

But … it needs to be synthesised into a concise and effective input (or short & sweet as John put it) with council support.

Any takers?  One week is a tight deadline!

Jonathan

From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] 
Sent: 02 December 2013 23:33
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] ATRT2 summary

Hi,

Speaking as a member of the ATRT from the GNSO, it would be good to have a response from the GNSO's council letting us know what the council agrees with and what you don't. And any uncovered concerns the council may have.

I encourage us to submit.
Avri Doria

Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info> wrote:

Apologies, 

The input we had was from Maria (not Marika as below) but the question remains:

Do we provide written input to the ATRT2?

If so; (a) it needs to be done by 13 Dec and (b) is Maria in a position to hold the pen?

Thanks,

Jonathan

From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com] 
Sent: 02 December 2013 17:47
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] ATRT2 summary

All,

We used this useful input from Marika to provide input to the ATRT2 in Buenos Aires.  

I recall that we provided some well thought out and apparently helpful input in relation to the PDP and our role in managing policy development within the GNSO.

In addition we touched on it during the wrap-up session on Thursday.

We have to decide and act quickly on whether or not to provide written input by close of the reply period on 13 December 2013.

Thereafter they aim to produce the final report by 31 December 2013.

Any comments or input on this welcome.

Jonathan

From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info] 
Sent: 20 November 2013 12:21
To: 'Maria Farrell'; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] ATRT2 summary

Many thanks Maria,

All, please note that we are meeting with the ATRT2 in our second meeting GNSO Council meeting today.  

First we seat the new council, second we elect the chair.

Then we meet with the ATRT.  Exiting councillors WELCOME to participate.  It’s an open / public meeting.

Jonathan

From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com] ! 
Sent: 20 November 2013 09:09
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] ATRT2 summary

Dear fellow councilors,

With apologies for the time it's taken me to send this last part, here is a summary of the ATRT2 report on the GNSO PDP. (I'm afraid I ran out of time to summarise the rest of the report.)

I hope this is useful.

Full text of the report is here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13-en.pdf

And the GNSO PDP part starts on page 59 of the report.

All the best, Maria

ATRT2 Report – section on GNSO PDP

The problem:

GNSO PDP is weak when it comes to resolving strong views and financial interests. 

Background research

Staff paper on improving the PDP is in the works

Community input

Chairs and WG veterans stress need for F2F meetings, professional facilitators, Board involvement and for people were both for and against the Board issuing threats and deadlines. 

Interconnect Report Findings

PDPs mostly done by North Americans and Europeans

Most active participants are paid to be there

Many participants dissatisfied with process, time it takes and feel it’s not worth while – one time only WG participation is typical

Culturally, PDP and WG process very Western culturally and English language based

ATRT2 Findings

Growing sense that professional facilitators are needed to help resolve difficult issues, although it may not suffice

Current model is based on email and conference calls, but F2F is more effective

! Board deadlines sometimes used to overcome intractable differences, but it’s not clear how to ensure people negotiate within PDP in good faith.  

Board is part of the problem: Board deadlined PDPs don’t always create good policy.  Or Board says it wants a policy and decides its own response in the meantime, or Board nullifies outcomes of a PDP.  This creates distrust that some in the PDP are not committed to it and will undermine outcome by lobbying Board or GAC.

ATRT2 Draft New Recommendations

ICANN should:

Fund facilitators and draft guidelines for when they can be used

Provide funding for more F2F meetings

Work with community to make PDP faster, to attract more people

The GAC should:

With the GNSO, find ways to input to WGs and to GNSO Council on draft PDP reports 

The Board and GNSO should:

Start an initiative to increase participation from outside NA/Europe, non-English speaking, other cultures, people not funded by industry. Players

Also:

The Board should set procedures for what to do when the GNSO cannot come to a decision within the time, and state “under what conditions the Board believes it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board acceptance”.

A step should be added to the PDP process where those unhappy with staff comment summary can respond.  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20131204/f0f64774/attachment.html>