[council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

Petter Rindforth petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
Wed Dec 11 23:01:09 UTC 2013

Hi All,

Thanks for a good job, the latest version - as far as I can see – is a considerable improvement over the earlier draft. That’s my positive part of comments…

I however also agree with Mikey, etc that we all share the desire to get things done in a timely way but may I add that this also means that we need enough time to discuss the issues with our respective groups in detail. Seeing suggestions of late changes when we only have a few hours to our Council meeting is not the best way - It is simply not realistic for councilors to obtain feedback and approval from their constituencies in such a short time frame on such an extensive report.

Secondly, I don’t agree with the strong reaction against the first bullet of section 13.4 (10.4 in Exec Summary) which deals with the situation in which “the GNSO cannot come to closure on a specific issue in a specified time.” This is a real and recurring problem and the reaction in the draft document seems quite defensive and not as constructive as it could be. A first step might be for the council to affirm in its comments that this is a problem, and that it is best solved, not by unilateral fiat from the Board (which is not even what is suggested in the report), but by GNSO (in the first instance) and the Board having a process in place to deal with it (which builds on what actually is suggested in the report).



Petter Rindforth, LL M

Fenix Legal KB
Stureplan 4c, 4tr
114 35 Stockholm
Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu

This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.
Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
Thank you

11 december 2013, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> skrev:

> Hi all,
> Here's a revised draft response to the ATRT2 recommendations. I've incorporated all the comments and changed the focus re time-effectiveness to something I hope is closer to our area of agreement.
> If there are more comments between now and the deadline of 23.50 UTC tonight, I'll work them in tomorrow.
> It would be helpful if you can make comments on the new draft, V.3, but if you're already knee-deep in V.2, then don't worry; just send comments on that one instead.
> Track changes and clean versions attached.
> Best, m
> On 11 December 2013 17:02, Gomes, Chuck <<cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
> > Thanks Alan.
> > 
> > 
> > Chuck
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:<alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>]
> > 
> > 
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake
> > Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; <council at gnso.icann.org>
> > 
> > 
> > Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
> > 
> > I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not being prescriptive about.
> > 
> > The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We (the GNSO and community) are making good progress toward coming up with methodologies which could improve the policy development process, but many of them will require funding (whether for services, travel or additional ICANN staff). What we are looking for is a commitment to put money into the process so that some of these pipe-dreams can become a reality.
> > 
> > Alan
> > 
> > At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > >Thanks Alan. Regarding the recommendations about using facilitators,
> > >did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN staff,
> > >community volunteers trained by ICANN or paid service providers? I
> > >understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than one
> > >the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.
> > >
> > >Chuck
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:<alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>]
> > >Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM
> > >To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck
> > >Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; <council at gnso.icann.org>
> > >Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
> > >
> > >I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the
> > >perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the
> > >recommendation being discussed.
> > >
> > >First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess. This
> > >recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in the
> > >body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my fingers
> > >crossed) be far more cohesive.
> > >
> > >The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body of
> > >the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve the
> > >Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the final
> > >recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy processes
> > >(not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does allow
> > >for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider deliberations
> > >as well.
> > >
> > >On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section was
> > >effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped for)
> > >by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are very
> > >welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more effectively,
> > >and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted, we
> > >just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up to
> > >speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of getting
> > >more people involved and not boring those who already understand the
> > >basic issues.
> > >
> > >The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted in Buenos
> > >Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this. The
> > >current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional services
> > >to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for when
> > >such options may be invoked. Such services could include training to
> > >enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address
> > >difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation,
> > >mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being developed, it
> > >will likely be further revised.
> > >
> > >The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and has been
> > >incorporated.
> > >
> > >The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you to
> > >get them submitted prior to the deadline.
> > >
> > >As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also
> > >looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and Implementation
> > >WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a
> > >substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what we are
> > >currently calling "implementation", it could be referred back to the
> > >GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways of
> > >coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably delay
> > >the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we are talking
> > >about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.
> > >
> > >Alan
> > 
> > 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20131211/cb75d9b6/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list