[council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Dec 12 02:22:36 UTC 2013

I guess this is a Eureka moment. All we need to 
do is ensure that we have few or no people 
working on a policy, and make sure they have little or no knowledge.

But if that were true, I know of a few WGs that 
should have completed there work LONG before they actually did....

At 11/12/2013 02:36 PM, Berry Cobb wrote:
>I’m probably a bit tardy in offering this to the 
>discussion, but it might at least help inform 
>future deliberations on the topic of time 
>duration on a PDP.  I started drafting a simple 
>formula a while ago and I suspect a few more variables could be added.
>Duration of a PDP is a function of participation 
>X frequency X complexity X knowledge
>Food for thought

>Berry Cobb
>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
><mailto:mail at berrycobb.com>mail at berrycobb.com
>From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
>[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
>Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:00
>To: Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell
>Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council at gnso.icann.org
>Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
>One more thing on this.  I was comfortable with 
>the changes in wording that James & I agreed to 
>previously. What happened to that?
><mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
>[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
>Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM
>To: James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell
>Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; 
><mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>council at gnso.icann.org
>Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
>I don’t think that time-effectiveness can be 
>dealt with in isolation of the other 
>criteria.  In fact, time-effectiveness itself is 
>not the root problem, it is the symptom.  We 
>could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve 
>the problem?  We could reduce the time it takes 
>to do a PDP?  Would that be a measure of 
>success?  The original DNSO did that in policy 
>work by having the GNSO Council act as a 
>legislative body.  It’s easy to do things faster 
>in a top-down management model.  I am willing to 
>consider other wording but I have a serious 
>problem with  the wording that is in the latest 
>version Maria distributed.  I think it undermines the other points we make.
>From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM
>To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell
>Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; 
><mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>council at gnso.icann.org
>Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
>I’m not entirely on board with some of the 
>sentiments expressed in your edits.  Opponents 
>of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the 
>-lack– of time efficiency as the primary flaw in 
>the process.  If we are to address those 
>internal and external critics, it seems that 
>this should be highlighted above the other concerns

>From: <Gomes>, Chuck <<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>cgomes at verisign.com>
>Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02
>To: Maria Farrell <<mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>maria.farrell at gmail.com>
>Cc: Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, 
>David Cake 
><<mailto:dave at difference.com.au>dave at difference.com.au>, 
>Mike O'Connor 
><<mailto:mike at haven2.com>mike at haven2.com>, 
>"<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>council at gnso.icann.org" 
><<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>council at gnso.icann.org>
>Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
>Thanks Maria.
>Regarding ‘13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN 
>community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective’:
>·         I don’t agree with this statement in 
>the second paragraph:  “So while we believe the 
>PDP should be judged on several criteria, 
>time-effectiveness is currently the most 
>pressing.”  I don’t think it is the most 
>pressing criterion but I do believe that is one 
>of several that must be focused on.  I would be 
>much more comfortable if we changed the sentence 
>to something like this:  “So while we believe 
>the PDP should be judged on several criteria, 
>time-effectiveness needs to be addressed.”
>·         Along the same line, I would change 
>the last paragraph as follows: “Additionally we 
>suggest that while one concern is 
>time-effectiveness and the fact that the PDPs 
>simply takes tootake a lot of time long, 
>reference might be also made in your 
>recommendations to other, more qualitative 
>measures of the effectiveness of policy-making; 
>deliberativeness, participation and support.”
>In my opinion, it is critical to focus on all 
>the criteria together rather than isolating one 
>as the most important.  As our other comments on 
>this suggest, that risks sacrificing qualitative 
>criteria.  Do we want to compromise the 
>bottom-up multi-stakeholder model to make PDPs 
>more time efficient?  I don’t think so.  I 
>believe what we want to do is to find ways to 
>improve time-effectiveness while still making 
>sure that PDPs are bottom-up and 
>multi-stakeholder.  For example, the qualitative 
>criteria of participation and support are areas 
>where improvements could be made to improve 
>time-effectiveness.  Finally, I think that 
>categorizing time-effectiveness as the most 
>pressing criterion is counter to what we say 
>later in our comments: “we are concerned that 
>speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO”.
>From: Maria Farrell 
>[<mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:26 PM
>To: Gomes, Chuck
>Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; 
><mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>council at gnso.icann.org
>Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
>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 
><<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>Thanks Alan.
>-----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; 
><mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>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.
>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; 
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>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/20131211/7626ab5d/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list