[council] Fwd: Circle ID piece on PDP 3.0

Wed Apr 3 10:39:58 UTC 2019

Thank you very much Rafik. It is indeed a lot of food to digest! 

ON THE SYSTEMIC ISSUES, I can only comment based on my own experience
(both in ICANN and previously as Commissioner) and concur to some of
Jeff's comments 

1. IT IS BETTER TO STICK TO A TIME SCHEDULE AND REPECT THE DEADLINES.
ATRT2 did much better than the CCT Review in that respect. Delaying is
only a tactic, and it does not help over the long term. 

2. IT MAKES NO SENSE TO CONTINUE IF THERE IS NO PROGRESS BEING MADE.
ccNSO-GNSO Working Group on Geographic Names did not make any progress
and we decided to stop and wind down that process, that eventually was
picked up in WT-5 of SubPro. The risk is large enough: if you don´t make
any progress like in the new Directory Services, somebody else will do
it for you from the outside (GDPR) and you will have to adapt to a new
environment. So we have to stop gazing so long at our own navels waiting
for the other side to give up or get bored and leave the room. 

3. It is MUCH better to have a REPRESENTATIVE GROUP OF PARTICIPANTS
(like ePDP and reviews) than a representative group of Co-Chairs,
because it may preempt some of the real discussion on new options and
fresh facts. 

4. On (the much touted Multi Stake holder-) CONSENSUS: While at the
working group level, consensus or the lack of it might represent
inflexible positions, and we can do little about it, the Board has a
much higher level of responsibility and since ATRT1 is bound to a clear
and explicit rationale for their decisions in contentious issues like in
the case of the reconsideration. 

Now a few questions to my fellow Councillors: what is the appropriate
consensus standard for the Council, which is exactly between the Working
Group's recommendations and the Board??? Do we work based on consensus
metrics like in the recent discussion on the ePDP, so criticized by Jeff
 (and I must say correctly so, since it left a bad feeling in our
mouths)? Or do we close the doors to the public, until we can come up
with a clear rationale for the whole Council's decision in such
important cases (like the Board does, even if they don't always have the
best rationale)? We really have to position ourselves correctly between
PDP and the Board, and we might have to be flexible as well depending on
the scope and impact of the issue at stake. Which brings me to...... 

THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COUNCIL'S AGENDA IN THE SHORT TERM. The most
important lesson for me in the short term, is that as the managers of
the process, we have to take a few pieces of wisdom here and discuss
them as soon as possible. And the reason I´m bringing them to the table,
is because I want to move the IGO-INGO issue forward in the next council
session, in a manner consistent with PDP 3.0 and Jeff´s timely comments.

While it is nice to have many options, I doubt we have so many option in
the case of the IGO-INGOs RPM for the next meeting. The consensus issue
Jeff so nicely covers is at the Working Group (discussion-)level, not at
the Councils (approval-)level. Please correct me if I´m wrong (cc:Jeff).
In my view we have to narrow down the options we have on the IGOs issue 

* either we accept the full report, even with recommendations we don't
like, and send it up TOGETHER ith the minority reports to the Board and
let them chew the whole consensus issue at the working group level. 

or 

**we send it back to the drawing Board to the OLD or a NEW PDP working
group (there we have an extra degree of freedom) 

Anything else would put our narrow remit as <<Manager of the PDP
process>> in the gray areas Jeff so well discusses and we don't have
time to fix before our next meeting in a few days time. Sorry to use up
the opportunity Jeff gave us to focus on such a narrow and short term
agenda issue. But it is one very close to my hearth over the last 6
years. 

My personal lesson form my first reading of Jeff's "Kantian critique",
is that we have to be more flexible but also more careful with our
decisions in the Council. We may have a healthy discussion and defend
our positions to the end in some public cases (like the chair elections)
but we have to close the doors and think hard and come up with a good
rationale for other tough decisions, particularly ones that impact many
people outside of the ICANN world. 

I have to agree with Jeff that insisting in the consensus level reached
for the ePDP does not make us look good. And my sincere apologies to the
Councilors who voted against some recommendations for that silly
situation we have been going trough. They deserve better from their
colleagues. 

An let's try to do a better job next time, since we recently come from
the land of continuous improvement. 

Cheers

---
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez 
carlosraul at gutierrez.se 
+506 8837 7176 
Aparatado 1571-1000 
COSTA RICA

El 2019-04-03 01:13, Rafik Dammak escribió:

> Hi all, 
> 
> Jeff kindly shared his blog post about PDP 3.0. Food for thought. 
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Rafik
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> De : JEFF NEUMAN 
> Date: mar. 2 avr. 2019 à 22:47
> Subject: Circle ID piece on PDP 3.0
> To:  
> 
> Keith, Rafik and Pam, 
> 
> I just wanted to draft your attention to a piece I did for Circle ID on PDP 3.0.  Please feel free to post this to the Council and let me know if there is anything I can do to help with the efforts. 
> 
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190401_dwill_pdp_3_save_the_multi_stakeholder_model/ 
> 
> I have enclosed a PDF copy as well.  
> 
> Best regards, 
> 
> JEFF NEUMAN 
> 
> Senior Vice President  
> 
> Com Laude | Valideus
> 1751 Pinnacle Drive 
> 
> Suite 600, McLean 
> 
> VA 22102, USA 
> 
> M: +1.202.549.5079 
> 
> D: +1.703.635.7514 
> 
> E: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> www.comlaude.com [1] 
> 
> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

Links:
------
[1] http://www.comlaude.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20190403/9dfd4164/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 29193 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20190403/9dfd4164/image001-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Will PDP 3.0 Save the Multi-Stakeholder Model_.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 146410 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20190403/9dfd4164/WillPDP3.0SavetheMulti-StakeholderModel_-0001.pdf>