August 2013 - atrt2 - lists.icann.org

Re: [atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 05
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

>From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >CC: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, > Michele Neylon - Blacknight > <michele(a)blacknight.com>, "rickert(a)anwaelte.de" > <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Paul Diaz > <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, > "roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com" <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, > "jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz" <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, Avri Doria > <avri(a)ella.com>, Marika Konings > <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "Larisa B. > Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, Charla Shambley > <charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute(a)pir.org> >Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 13:37:15 +0000 > > >Sorry for the delay, just getting up to speed on >this thread. A few thoughts/reactions: > >- I agree with Mikey's overall point that we >need to invest heavily in "onboarding" new >participants. The veterans have to be >answerable to their overlords, and the folks >paying the bills want to see their >representatives "move up" in the ICANN food >chain, as it helps justify the continued costs >(including opportunity) associated with >participation in this beast. One of the ideas >we kicked around in the RrSG is an informal >mentor/protege program, where new blood can be >assigned to assist a more experienced member for some introductory period.... > >- Also agree with Alan that the PDP works, when >it is used properly. But when it comes to PDPs >that have "failed," I would point out that in >many case these involved ICANN over-reaching in >to areas that are well beyond the technical >coordination of the DNS. Whenever ICANN looks >into the mirror and sees a new kind of >competition authority, or WIPO, or a content >regulator, or a consumer protection group, then >you can always count on the resulting PDP to be messy and unsatisfactory. > >- And, frankly, there is a bit of a culture >problem when it comes to the expected level of >effort for PDP work. Some participants are, in >my opinion, only interested in chair warming. >They attend meetings and calls and speak up when >it suits them, but to keep PDPs on an aggressive >schedule folks will occasionally have to do some >homework (gather data, write a draft, review >slides/text, lead a subteam). Even on those >rare occasions when we have sufficient >participants, it's tough to get everyone pulling on the rope. > >Just my initial thoughts. I look forward to our call..... > >Thanks-- > >J. > >Sent from my iPad > >On Aug 7, 2013, at 23:04, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >>A couple of more thought Mikey (and again, they are mine). >> >>When you are thinking about how to get more >>people involved (and up the very steep learning >>curve of what some of these issues are about - >>even the "simple" ones tend to have a lot of >>complex wrinkles), consider those who do not >>have any sponsor to pay their way and give them >>a bunch of meetings to start to feel at home. >>Of the people we get appointed to the ALAC, >>only a minority really take to ICANN and the >>policy process. And getting people involved who >>have never seen an ICANN meeting, or see one >>every N years, has not proven very successful. >> >>The undefined "public interest" is not going to >>go away. How do we make sure it is being addressed in PDPs? >> >>In my mind, the new PDP process is a good >>improvement, but most of the changes were >>actually in place (or we were moving there) >>before the new process was adopted. So I think >>the change you are seeing is a gradual >>improvement of the process used, and not really >>due to the new Bylaw words and such (not to >>minimize the importance of some things such as >>the preliminary Issue Report, but I don't think >>that is why we are doing better. It is not the >>IRTP or Locking PDPs that are the challenge. We >>understand how to do those. It is the difficult >>ones that we need to do better. It remains to >>be seen what is going to come out of the >>IGO/INGO PDP, and when we get to the next >>Whois/Directory Services one, things may get >>challenging again. And ones with large $ >>involved, with both sides present at the table, are going to be real hard. >> >>So I don't think the PDP is "broken". But how >>it is executed needs to be modified to meet the more challenging of situations. >> >>Alan >> >>At 07/08/2013 11:42 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote: >>>hi Alan, >>> >>>a couple ideas come to mind from your list of questions. >>> >>>first, another Mikey Picture. this one >>>highlights an idea that is emerging for me, >>>but not quite fully-baked. i think one key >>>piece that's missing from the current policy >>>process is an orderly way to bring in New >>>Blood. so our current crop of PDP >>>participants is "graduating" to other tasks >>>(constituency-leadership, >>>new-jobs-with-applicants, expert >>>working-groups, whatever) but we aren't >>>filling in the gaps they leave with new people >>>who are well-prepared to take up the >>>slack. with that in mind, here's my Revision >>>Zero picture of the on-ramp for new >>>participants and the off-ramp for those of us >>>who want to wind down a little bit. there are >>>some things i don't like, but this is close enough for jazz. >>> >>><2e11bd8.jpg> >>> >>> >>>it seems to me that we could see a lot of >>>benefit from building a deeper pool of people >>>in the "contribute" and "lead" layers of all >>>AC/SOs if we paid more attention to the onramp >>>for new folks (enter -> discover -> learn -> >>>practice), and take better advantage of the >>>old-timers by having offering corresponding >>>tasks that they could help with as they wind >>>down (recruit new people, guide them into the >>>parts of ICANN that might interest them, help >>>them learn the ropes, help them polish their >>>early efforts, assist them as they contribute, >>>and mentor the leadership layer). >>> >>>it also seems to me that there's a completely >>>blurry continuum between the "outreach" effort >>>and the "policy" effort that's being missed >>>right now. my sense is that currently the >>>outreach folks don't really know much about >>>the policy side and thus aren't meeting with >>>much success in bringing people on board in a >>>way that they're ready to jump into >>>policy-making. meanwhile, i think the policy >>>side is being starved for resources (and not >>>taking best advantage of the resources that >>>are already here). some kind of blending of >>>these two functions might be a way to beef up >>>that pool of contributors and leaders. i >>>think this could be cheap, and rewarding for everybody. >>> >>>note that this picture isn't just aimed at the >>>GNSO. and to that point i think it would be >>>helpful if we got better that >>>cross-organizational stuff. again, i think >>>we're under-utilizing our old-timers. getting >>>better at the cross-organizational stuff could also be cheap/fun. >>> >>>second reaction, since i've been on all the >>>WGs you mention Alan (and had a chair role in >>>a couple). i think the WG process has gotten >>>a LOT better as the GNSO has settled into the >>>new PDP that came out of the last Review. the >>>trouble is that these changes take time to >>>take hold, and we're only now starting to see >>>our first complete PDPs out of that new >>>process. IRTP, Locking, Thick Whois are good >>>examples of pretty-rapid, pretty-good >>>efforts. i like those ones where the Council and Board votes are unanimous. >>> >>>big point: don't be too quick to "fix" the PDP >>>just yet -- that's like overwatering a garden >>>or over-pruning a bonsai tree. let the core >>>process mature a little bit more. pay more >>>attention to that which surrounds that core >>>policy-making activity for now. plenty of room for improvement there. >>> >>>Vertical Integration was tough. a lot of you >>>were on it. Roberto and i co-chaired it. i >>>think that PDP is an exception that proves a >>>few of the rules. here are the rules it proved for me: >>> >>>- charter PDPs carefully. ambiguities in the >>>VI charter meant that we had a bit of a hill >>>to climb before we could really even get under >>>way. a lot of our energy was spent trying to >>>out-guess the Board, and the Council's >>>reaction to the Board's decisions. it felt to >>>me like a double-blind poker game >>>sometimes. i had a tough time chairing Fast >>>Flux too -- again, the charter wasn't very >>>good. i wrote a pretty detailed discussion >>>about the FFlux charter which you can read >>>here -- >>><http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf>http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf >>>(note: this was written in 2008, so while >>>there are good ideas in there, some things >>>have changed since then -- but there's lots of >>>role/responsibility discussion that still applies today). >>> >>>- protect the schedule. i'm still convinced we >>>could have arrived at consensus (or rough >>>consensus) in VI, had we not been jerked >>>around on our schedule the way we were. this >>>is a lesson that generalizes nicely to the >>>whole new-gTLD program (by the way, that PDP >>>left a lot to be desired in terms of >>>implementation detail, no?). i think we (all >>>of us) have got a lot of lessons to learn >>>about how the schedule of the new gTLD program >>>was managed. expectations are all over the >>>map. it remains, to this very day, a source >>>of conflict. my view is that PDPs are >>>especially vulnerable to schedule-pressure >>>because it cuts off an important >>>"let's-take-time-to-figure-this-out" premise >>>that underlies consensus decision-making. a >>>similar impact to the house-limit on the state of play in a casino. >>> >>>- keep the "layers" clear. i share the view >>>that the bottom of the the bottom-up process >>>ought to be where the rigorous discussions, >>>leading to precise language, ought to take >>>place. non-consensus ("representational") >>>layers above (e.g. GNSO Council and Board) >>>should either say "yes, good job" or "no, try >>>again" but i don't think they are as well >>>equipped to actually dive in and chew on the >>>details. i think we tend to get into trouble >>>when we deviate from that approach. final VI >>>point -- the Board really surprised me when it >>>gave us that really-short (2-week) deadline at >>>the end of VI and then took the decision upon >>>itself when we said we couldn't get done that >>>fast. while i support the Board's decision, i'm not sure it's a real good one. >>> >>>see? all that stuff off my chest and now >>>there's more oxygen available for our >>>conference call. thanks for your points >>>Alan. maybe some of the others want to a) add >>>on to this thread or b) ask more questions? >>> >>>mikey >>> >>>On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Alan Greenberg >>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>> >>>>We'll follow up with something that is more >>>>than just my opinion, but here goes with some of my thoughts. >>>> >>>>1. There is little question that the current >>>>PDP can work well (ie all sides represented >>>>in the process and sound balanced policy as >>>>an outcome) in some instances. I think the >>>>current IRTP PDPs and Lock are fine >>>>illustrations. All parties working in good faith to find a common ground. >>>> >>>>2. Vertical Integration is one of the PDPs >>>>that attracts the most attention. Some people >>>>think that a deadlock is a reasonable >>>>outcome, given that it highlights the issues >>>>and punts to the Board to make the decision. >>>>Other feel the Board should never need to >>>>make such a decision, and at best (and I am >>>>paraphrasing one Board member during the >>>>Durban ATRT-Board interaction) the Board >>>>should take an interim do-no-harm decision and then push back to the GNSO. >>>> >>>>3. You know I will raise PEDNR as another >>>>example. It took far too long to produce >>>>relatively little. I personally think that it >>>>was a very poor use of time and did not meet >>>>the original goals and is a good example of >>>>the inability to attract sufficient >>>>non-contracted parties to a PDP unless it is very emotionally charged. >>>> >>>>4. If we were to (heaven forbid) re-do the >>>>new gTLD policy using the current rules, >>>>would be any better at getting something that >>>>is not mired in the controversy of the current process. >>>> >>>>The bottom line is that ICANN has a number of >>>>responsibilities but setting policy for the >>>>gTLD space is the one that it spends the most >>>>time on and is essentially a make-or-break >>>>function for the organization. Can we rely on >>>>the GNSO PDP to make sound policy >>>>representing the balanced needs of all >>>>stakeholders, both present and not present, and in the public interest? >>>> >>>>Alan >>>> >>>>At 07/08/2013 09:45 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote: >>>>>hi all, >>>>> >>>>>could somebody unpack this a little >>>>>bit? "whether the current GNSO PDP process >>>>>satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder >>>>>model and Internet users" is a pretty broad >>>>>topic (to put it mildly). presuming that >>>>>this is going to be a 1-hour call, 90 >>>>>minutes at most, i would find it helpful if >>>>>the ATRT2 could come up with 3-4 questions >>>>>you would like us to think about and build an agenda from there. >>>>> >>>>>thanks, >>>>> >>>>>mikey >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Alice Jansen >>>>><<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>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 (141516 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@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)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.) >>> >>> >>>PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: >>><http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >>>OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Re: [atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 04
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

>Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 07:17:47 -0400 >Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >From: Brian Cute <brianacute(a)gmail.com> >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >CC: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, > Michele Neylon - Blacknight > <michele(a)blacknight.com>, "rickert(a)anwaelte.de" > <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, > "jbladel(a)godaddy.com" > <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, > "roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com" <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, > "jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz" <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, Avri Doria > <avri(a)ella.com>, Marika Konings > <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "Larisa B. > Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, Charla Shambley > <charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute(a)pir.org> > >Alan and Mikey, > >A few thoughts to add that I hope provide focus >for Mikey and the WG Chairs prior to our >interaction. Among the concerns ATRT2 has heard >during its data gathering phase (which we are >still in), are: 1) that certain stakeholders >have not been able to adequately participate - >that could be a "structural issue" or it could >be a "sufficient representation" issue or both; >and 2) that there has been manipulation of the >PDP process (from Yoav during the GNSO >interaction in Durban). He did not that his >allegations go back 2 years or longer and he has >been asked to provide data on that >point. Personally, I draw no conclusions from >Yoav's statements and will not until we see data >on those points. I think Mikey hits on a couple >of important issues regarding chartering the PDP >and "schedule pressure" and I hope Mikey and >other WG Chairs can elaborate on those points - >and others that address the effectiveness (or >not) of the PDP. Personally, I am not sure that >the question "is the PDP broken" is actually the >best question to focus on in assessing the >process. Even if that is a question put to the >ATRT2, I don't think we have seen enough data at >this point to draw any conclusions on it. I >hope this is helpful and look forward to input from the WG Chairs. > >Regards, >Brian > > >On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >A couple of more thought Mikey (and again, they are mine). > >When you are thinking about how to get more >people involved (and up the very steep learning >curve of what some of these issues are about - >even the "simple" ones tend to have a lot of >complex wrinkles), consider those who do not >have any sponsor to pay their way and give them >a bunch of meetings to start to feel at home. Of >the people we get appointed to the ALAC, only a >minority really take to ICANN and the policy >process. And getting people involved who have >never seen an ICANN meeting, or see one every N >years, has not proven very successful. > >The undefined "public interest" is not going to >go away. How do we make sure it is being addressed in PDPs? > >In my mind, the new PDP process is a good >improvement, but most of the changes were >actually in place (or we were moving there) >before the new process was adopted. So I think >the change you are seeing is a gradual >improvement of the process used, and not really >due to the new Bylaw words and such (not to >minimize the importance of some things such as >the preliminary Issue Report, but I don't think >that is why we are doing better. It is not the >IRTP or Locking PDPs that are the challenge. We >understand how to do those. It is the difficult >ones that we need to do better. It remains to be >seen what is going to come out of the IGO/INGO >PDP, and when we get to the next Whois/Directory >Services one, things may get challenging again. >And ones with large $ involved, with both sides >present at the table, are going to be real hard. > >So I don't think the PDP is "broken". But how it >is executed needs to be modified to meet the more challenging of situations. > >Alan > > >At 07/08/2013 11:42 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote: >>hi Alan, >> >>a couple ideas come to mind from your list of questions. >> >>first, another Mikey Picture. this one >>highlights an idea that is emerging for me, but >>not quite fully-baked. i think one key piece >>that's missing from the current policy process >>is an orderly way to bring in New Blood. so >>our current crop of PDP participants is >>"graduating" to other tasks >>(constituency-leadership, >>new-jobs-with-applicants, expert >>working-groups, whatever) but we aren't filling >>in the gaps they leave with new people who are >>well-prepared to take up the slack. with that >>in mind, here's my Revision Zero picture of the >>on-ramp for new participants and the off-ramp >>for those of us who want to wind down a little >>bit. there are some things i don't like, but this is close enough for jazz. >> >>[] >> >> >> >>it seems to me that we could see a lot of >>benefit from building a deeper pool of people >>in the "contribute" and "lead" layers of all >>AC/SOs if we paid more attention to the onramp >>for new folks (enter -> discover -> learn -> >>practice), and take better advantage of the >>old-timers by having offering corresponding >>tasks that they could help with as they wind >>down (recruit new people, guide them into the >>parts of ICANN that might interest them, help >>them learn the ropes, help them polish their >>early efforts, assist them as they contribute, >>and mentor the leadership layer). >> >>it also seems to me that there's a completely >>blurry continuum between the "outreach" effort >>and the "policy" effort that's being missed >>right now. my sense is that currently the >>outreach folks don't really know much about the >>policy side and thus aren't meeting with much >>success in bringing people on board in a way >>that they're ready to jump into >>policy-making. meanwhile, i think the policy >>side is being starved for resources (and not >>taking best advantage of the resources that are >>already here). some kind of blending of these >>two functions might be a way to beef up that >>pool of contributors and leaders. i think this >>could be cheap, and rewarding for everybody. >> >>note that this picture isn't just aimed at the >>GNSO. and to that point i think it would be >>helpful if we got better that >>cross-organizational stuff. again, i think >>we're under-utilizing our old-timers. getting >>better at the cross-organizational stuff could also be cheap/fun. >> >>second reaction, since i've been on all the WGs >>you mention Alan (and had a chair role in a >>couple). i think the WG process has gotten a >>LOT better as the GNSO has settled into the new >>PDP that came out of the last Review. the >>trouble is that these changes take time to take >>hold, and we're only now starting to see our >>first complete PDPs out of that new >>process. IRTP, Locking, Thick Whois are good >>examples of pretty-rapid, pretty-good >>efforts. i like those ones where the Council and Board votes are unanimous. >> >>big point: don't be too quick to "fix" the PDP >>just yet -- that's like overwatering a garden >>or over-pruning a bonsai tree. let the core >>process mature a little bit more. pay more >>attention to that which surrounds that core >>policy-making activity for now. plenty of room for improvement there. >> >>Vertical Integration was tough. a lot of you >>were on it. Roberto and i co-chaired it. i >>think that PDP is an exception that proves a >>few of the rules. here are the rules it proved for me: >> >>- charter PDPs carefully. ambiguities in the >>VI charter meant that we had a bit of a hill to >>climb before we could really even get under >>way. a lot of our energy was spent trying to >>out-guess the Board, and the Council's reaction >>to the Board's decisions. it felt to me like a >>double-blind poker game sometimes. i had a >>tough time chairing Fast Flux too -- again, the >>charter wasn't very good. i wrote a pretty >>detailed discussion about the FFlux charter >>which you can read here -- >><http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf>http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf >>(note: this was written in 2008, so while there >>are good ideas in there, some things have >>changed since then -- but there's lots of >>role/responsibility discussion that still applies today). >> >>- protect the schedule. i'm still convinced we >>could have arrived at consensus (or rough >>consensus) in VI, had we not been jerked around >>on our schedule the way we were. this is a >>lesson that generalizes nicely to the whole >>new-gTLD program (by the way, that PDP left a >>lot to be desired in terms of implementation >>detail, no?). i think we (all of us) have got >>a lot of lessons to learn about how the >>schedule of the new gTLD program was >>managed. expectations are all over the >>map. it remains, to this very day, a source of >>conflict. my view is that PDPs are especially >>vulnerable to schedule-pressure because it cuts >>off an important >>"let's-take-time-to-figure-this-out" premise >>that underlies consensus decision-making. a >>similar impact to the house-limit on the state of play in a casino. >> >>- keep the "layers" clear. i share the view >>that the bottom of the the bottom-up process >>ought to be where the rigorous discussions, >>leading to precise language, ought to take >>place. non-consensus ("representational") >>layers above (e.g. GNSO Council and Board) >>should either say "yes, good job" or "no, try >>again" but i don't think they are as well >>equipped to actually dive in and chew on the >>details. i think we tend to get into trouble >>when we deviate from that approach. final VI >>point -- the Board really surprised me when it >>gave us that really-short (2-week) deadline at >>the end of VI and then took the decision upon >>itself when we said we couldn't get done that >>fast. while i support the Board's decision, i'm not sure it's a real good one. >> >>see? all that stuff off my chest and now >>there's more oxygen available for our >>conference call. thanks for your points >>Alan. maybe some of the others want to a) add >>on to this thread or b) ask more questions? >> >>mikey >> >>On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >> >>>We'll follow up with something that is more >>>than just my opinion, but here goes with some of my thoughts. >>> >>>1. There is little question that the current >>>PDP can work well (ie all sides represented in >>>the process and sound balanced policy as an >>>outcome) in some instances. I think the >>>current IRTP PDPs and Lock are fine >>>illustrations. All parties working in good faith to find a common ground. >>> >>>2. Vertical Integration is one of the PDPs >>>that attracts the most attention. Some people >>>think that a deadlock is a reasonable outcome, >>>given that it highlights the issues and punts >>>to the Board to make the decision. Other feel >>>the Board should never need to make such a >>>decision, and at best (and I am paraphrasing >>>one Board member during the Durban ATRT-Board >>>interaction) the Board should take an interim >>>do-no-harm decision and then push back to the GNSO. >>> >>>3. You know I will raise PEDNR as another >>>example. It took far too long to produce >>>relatively little. I personally think that it >>>was a very poor use of time and did not meet >>>the original goals and is a good example of >>>the inability to attract sufficient >>>non-contracted parties to a PDP unless it is very emotionally charged. >>> >>>4. If we were to (heaven forbid) re-do the new >>>gTLD policy using the current rules, would be >>>any better at getting something that is not >>>mired in the controversy of the current process. >>> >>>The bottom line is that ICANN has a number of >>>responsibilities but setting policy for the >>>gTLD space is the one that it spends the most >>>time on and is essentially a make-or-break >>>function for the organization. Can we rely on >>>the GNSO PDP to make sound policy representing >>>the balanced needs of all stakeholders, both >>>present and not present, and in the public interest? >>> >>>Alan >>> >>>At 07/08/2013 09:45 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote: >>>>hi all, >>>> >>>>could somebody unpack this a little >>>>bit? "whether the current GNSO PDP process >>>>satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder >>>>model and Internet users" is a pretty broad >>>>topic (to put it mildly). presuming that >>>>this is going to be a 1-hour call, 90 minutes >>>>at most, i would find it helpful if the ATRT2 >>>>could come up with 3-4 questions you would >>>>like us to think about and build an agenda from there. >>>> >>>>thanks, >>>> >>>>mikey >>>> >>>> >>>>On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Alice Jansen >>>><<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org > wrote: >>>> >>>>>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 (141516 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: <tel:%2B32%20289%20474%2003>+32 289 474 03 >>>>>Mobile: <tel:%2B32%204%2073%2031%2076%2056>+32 4 73 31 76 56 >>>>>Skype: alice_jansen_icann >>>>>Email: <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org >>>> >>>> >>>>PHONE: <tel:651-647-6109>651-647-6109, FAX: >>>><tel:866-280-2356>866-280-2356, WEB: >>>><http://www.haven2.com/>www.haven2.com, >>>>HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >> >> >>PHONE: <tel:651-647-6109>651-647-6109, FAX: >><tel:866-280-2356>866-280-2356, WEB: >><http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >>OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >> > >Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="2e11bd8.jpg"; x-mac-type=4A504547; > x-mac-creator=4A565752 >Content-ID: <.0> >X-Attachment-Id: d1614b4666f98c90_0.1 >

1 0

Re: [atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 03
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> >Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:42:28 -0500 >CC: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight > <michele(a)blacknight.com>, > "rickert(a)anwaelte.de" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, > "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, "jbladel(a)godaddy.com" > <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, > "roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com" <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, > "jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz" <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, Avri Doria > <avri(a)ella.com>, Marika Konings > <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "Larisa B. > Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, Charla Shambley > <charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute(a)pir.org> >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Importance: high > >hi Alan, > >a couple ideas come to mind from your list of questions. > >first, another Mikey Picture. this one >highlights an idea that is emerging for me, but >not quite fully-baked. i think one key piece >that's missing from the current policy process >is an orderly way to bring in New Blood. so our >current crop of PDP participants is "graduating" >to other tasks (constituency-leadership, >new-jobs-with-applicants, expert working-groups, >whatever) but we aren't filling in the gaps they >leave with new people who are well-prepared to >take up the slack. with that in mind, here's my >Revision Zero picture of the on-ramp for new >participants and the off-ramp for those of us >who want to wind down a little bit. there are >some things i don't like, but this is close enough for jazz. > >[] > > > >it seems to me that we could see a lot of >benefit from building a deeper pool of people in >the "contribute" and "lead" layers of all AC/SOs >if we paid more attention to the onramp for new >folks (enter -> discover -> learn -> practice), >and take better advantage of the old-timers by >having offering corresponding tasks that they >could help with as they wind down (recruit new >people, guide them into the parts of ICANN that >might interest them, help them learn the ropes, >help them polish their early efforts, assist >them as they contribute, and mentor the leadership layer). > >it also seems to me that there's a completely >blurry continuum between the "outreach" effort >and the "policy" effort that's being missed >right now. my sense is that currently the >outreach folks don't really know much about the >policy side and thus aren't meeting with much >success in bringing people on board in a way >that they're ready to jump into >policy-making. meanwhile, i think the policy >side is being starved for resources (and not >taking best advantage of the resources that are >already here). some kind of blending of these >two functions might be a way to beef up that >pool of contributors and leaders. i think this >could be cheap, and rewarding for everybody. > >note that this picture isn't just aimed at the >GNSO. and to that point i think it would be >helpful if we got better that >cross-organizational stuff. again, i think >we're under-utilizing our old-timers. getting >better at the cross-organizational stuff could also be cheap/fun. > >second reaction, since i've been on all the WGs >you mention Alan (and had a chair role in a >couple). i think the WG process has gotten a >LOT better as the GNSO has settled into the new >PDP that came out of the last Review. the >trouble is that these changes take time to take >hold, and we're only now starting to see our >first complete PDPs out of that new >process. IRTP, Locking, Thick Whois are good >examples of pretty-rapid, pretty-good >efforts. i like those ones where the Council and Board votes are unanimous. > >big point: don't be too quick to "fix" the PDP >just yet -- that's like overwatering a garden or >over-pruning a bonsai tree. let the core >process mature a little bit more. pay more >attention to that which surrounds that core >policy-making activity for now. plenty of room for improvement there. > >Vertical Integration was tough. a lot of you >were on it. Roberto and i co-chaired it. i >think that PDP is an exception that proves a few >of the rules. here are the rules it proved for me: > >- charter PDPs carefully. ambiguities in the VI >charter meant that we had a bit of a hill to >climb before we could really even get under >way. a lot of our energy was spent trying to >out-guess the Board, and the Council's reaction >to the Board's decisions. it felt to me like a >double-blind poker game sometimes. i had a >tough time chairing Fast Flux too -- again, the >charter wasn't very good. i wrote a pretty >detailed discussion about the FFlux charter >which you can read here -- ><http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf>http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf >(note: this was written in 2008, so while there >are good ideas in there, some things have >changed since then -- but there's lots of >role/responsibility discussion that still applies today). > >- protect the schedule. i'm still convinced we >could have arrived at consensus (or rough >consensus) in VI, had we not been jerked around >on our schedule the way we were. this is a >lesson that generalizes nicely to the whole >new-gTLD program (by the way, that PDP left a >lot to be desired in terms of implementation >detail, no?). i think we (all of us) have got a >lot of lessons to learn about how the schedule >of the new gTLD program was >managed. expectations are all over the map. it >remains, to this very day, a source of >conflict. my view is that PDPs are especially >vulnerable to schedule-pressure because it cuts >off an important >"let's-take-time-to-figure-this-out" premise >that underlies consensus decision-making. a >similar impact to the house-limit on the state of play in a casino. > >- keep the "layers" clear. i share the view >that the bottom of the the bottom-up process >ought to be where the rigorous discussions, >leading to precise language, ought to take >place. non-consensus ("representational") >layers above (e.g. GNSO Council and Board) >should either say "yes, good job" or "no, try >again" but i don't think they are as well >equipped to actually dive in and chew on the >details. i think we tend to get into trouble >when we deviate from that approach. final VI >point -- the Board really surprised me when it >gave us that really-short (2-week) deadline at >the end of VI and then took the decision upon >itself when we said we couldn't get done that >fast. while i support the Board's decision, i'm not sure it's a real good one. > >see? all that stuff off my chest and now >there's more oxygen available for our conference >call. thanks for your points Alan. maybe some >of the others want to a) add on to this thread or b) ask more questions? > >mikey > >On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >>We'll follow up with something that is more >>than just my opinion, but here goes with some of my thoughts. >> >>1. There is little question that the current >>PDP can work well (ie all sides represented in >>the process and sound balanced policy as an >>outcome) in some instances. I think the current >>IRTP PDPs and Lock are fine illustrations. All >>parties working in good faith to find a common ground. >> >>2. Vertical Integration is one of the PDPs that >>attracts the most attention. Some people think >>that a deadlock is a reasonable outcome, given >>that it highlights the issues and punts to the >>Board to make the decision. Other feel the >>Board should never need to make such a >>decision, and at best (and I am paraphrasing >>one Board member during the Durban ATRT-Board >>interaction) the Board should take an interim >>do-no-harm decision and then push back to the GNSO. >> >>3. You know I will raise PEDNR as another >>example. It took far too long to produce >>relatively little. I personally think that it >>was a very poor use of time and did not meet >>the original goals and is a good example of the >>inability to attract sufficient non-contracted >>parties to a PDP unless it is very emotionally charged. >> >>4. If we were to (heaven forbid) re-do the new >>gTLD policy using the current rules, would be >>any better at getting something that is not >>mired in the controversy of the current process. >> >>The bottom line is that ICANN has a number of >>responsibilities but setting policy for the >>gTLD space is the one that it spends the most >>time on and is essentially a make-or-break >>function for the organization. Can we rely on >>the GNSO PDP to make sound policy representing >>the balanced needs of all stakeholders, both >>present and not present, and in the public interest? >> >>Alan >> >>At 07/08/2013 09:45 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote: >>>hi all, >>> >>>could somebody unpack this a little >>>bit? "whether the current GNSO PDP process >>>satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder >>>model and Internet users" is a pretty broad >>>topic (to put it mildly). presuming that this >>>is going to be a 1-hour call, 90 minutes at >>>most, i would find it helpful if the ATRT2 >>>could come up with 3-4 questions you would >>>like us to think about and build an agenda from there. >>> >>>thanks, >>> >>>mikey >>> >>> >>>On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Alice Jansen >>><<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org > wrote: >>> >>>>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 (141516 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@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)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.) > > >PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: ><http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >

1 0

Re: [atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 02
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

>Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 11:39:12 -0400 >To: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Cc: Michele Neylon - Blacknight ><michele(a)blacknight.com>, "rickert(a)anwaelte.de" ><rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, Chuck Gomes ><cgomes(a)verisign.com>, "jbladel(a)godaddy.com" ><jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz ><pdiaz(a)pir.org>, "roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com" ><roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, >"jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz" ><jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, Avri Doria ><avri(a)ella.com>, Marika Konings ><marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "Larisa B. Gurnick" ><larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, Charla Shambley ><charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute(a)pir.org> > >We'll follow up with something that is more than >just my opinion, but here goes with some of my thoughts. > >1. There is little question that the current PDP >can work well (ie all sides represented in the >process and sound balanced policy as an outcome) >in some instances. I think the current IRTP PDPs >and Lock are fine illustrations. All parties >working in good faith to find a common ground. > >2. Vertical Integration is one of the PDPs that >attracts the most attention. Some people think >that a deadlock is a reasonable outcome, given >that it highlights the issues and punts to the >Board to make the decision. Other feel the Board >should never need to make such a decision, and >at best (and I am paraphrasing one Board member >during the Durban ATRT-Board interaction) the >Board should take an interim do-no-harm decision >and then push back to the GNSO. > >3. You know I will raise PEDNR as another >example. It took far too long to produce >relatively little. I personally think that it >was a very poor use of time and did not meet the >original goals and is a good example of the >inability to attract sufficient non-contracted >parties to a PDP unless it is very emotionally charged. > >4. If we were to (heaven forbid) re-do the new >gTLD policy using the current rules, would be >any better at getting something that is not >mired in the controversy of the current process. > >The bottom line is that ICANN has a number of >responsibilities but setting policy for the gTLD >space is the one that it spends the most time on >and is essentially a make-or-break function for >the organization. Can we rely on the GNSO PDP to >make sound policy representing the balanced >needs of all stakeholders, both present and not >present, and in the public interest? > >Alan > >At 07/08/2013 09:45 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote: >>hi all, >> >>could somebody unpack this a little >>bit? "whether the current GNSO PDP process >>satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder >>model and Internet users" is a pretty broad >>topic (to put it mildly). presuming that this >>is going to be a 1-hour call, 90 minutes at >>most, i would find it helpful if the ATRT2 >>could come up with 3-4 questions you would like >>us to think about and build an agenda from there. >> >>thanks, >> >>mikey >> >> >>On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Alice Jansen >><<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >>>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 (141516 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@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)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.)

1 0

Re: [atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 01
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> >Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 08:45:41 -0500 >CC: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com>, > "rickert(a)anwaelte.de" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, Chuck Gomes > <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, > "jbladel(a)godaddy.com" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz > <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, > "roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com" <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, > "jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz" <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, Avri Doria > <avri(a)ella.com>, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, Marika Konings > <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "Larisa B. > Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, > Charla Shambley > <charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute(a)pir.org> >To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org> >Importance: high > >hi all, > >could somebody unpack this a little >bit? "whether the current GNSO PDP process >satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder >model and Internet users" is a pretty broad >topic (to put it mildly). presuming that this >is going to be a 1-hour call, 90 minutes at >most, i would find it helpful if the ATRT2 could >come up with 3-4 questions you would like us to >think about and build an agenda from there. > >thanks, > >mikey > > >On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Alice Jansen ><<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org> wrote: > >>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 (141516 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@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)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.)

1 0

Discussion on PDP
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

As you know, a group of (largely) ex-PDP Chairs will be meeting with us next week. You saw an earlier message from me in reply to Mikey O'Conner identifying some of the issues that we would like to see discussed. This kicked off a thread that may rank among the best e-mail discussions I have ever participated in. I will forward those message to the entire ATRT now. I think the thread is about finished, but if there are any further message, I will forward those as well. I strongly suggest that all take a look at these messages prior to our meeting with these folks. I'm not sure if these message will arrive in the correct order, so I am sequence numbering the subject lines. Alan

1 0

Annual Transparency Review Recommendation write up
by Avri Doria Aug. 9, 2013

Aug. 9, 2013

Hi, I need to do more on this, but here is where I am today - deadline day. I am traveling over the next few days so not sure I will get more done before LA. I am keeping the most recent version in google drive. It is open for comments. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jbhCP-LFfx3I8yOvFOZcpcTR48T-fUfNx_j6-5M… I have also enclosed a doc file export of its current state. avri

1 0

Fwd: [Internet Policy] CIGI paper on Internet Governance
by Carlos Raul Aug. 9, 2013

Aug. 9, 2013

looking for airplane readings to LAX? *Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez* Skype carlos.raulg _________ Apartado 1571-1000 *COSTA RICA* ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Joly MacFie <joly(a)punkcast.com> Date: Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:19 PM Subject: [Internet Policy] CIGI paper on Internet Governance To: "internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org" <InternetPolicy(a)elists.isoc.org> http://www.cigionline.org/publications/2013/7/reimagining-internet-need-hig… "Reimagining the Internet: The Need for a High-level Strategic Vision for Internet Governance," by CIGI Research Fellow Mark Raymond and Distinguished Fellow Gordon Smith, looks at the complex and highly decentralized world of Internet governance and calls for a high-level strategy consistent with democratic values and human rights. The new report is part one of CIGI’s Internet Governance Papers series, which feature commentary by leading experts on pressing issues and the political implications of the most likely Internet governance scenarios in the 2015-2020 timeframe. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.

2 1

GAC related preliminary drafts for discussion
by Fiona Alexander Aug. 9, 2013

Aug. 9, 2013

For discussion next week, attached are the following preliminary drafts for the group to consider: - ATRT2 assessment of ATRT1 GAC related recommendations - ATRT2 proposed new GAC related recommendations

1 0

ATRT2 Template on Reconsideration (WS1)
by Carlos Raúl Gutierrez Aug. 9, 2013

Aug. 9, 2013

Folks, I don´t know exactly what todays deadline should be. So I decided to take my local noontime as the one, and then go happily to lunch! There is a lot more to improve on this draft and hope to come to LA with a better one, but at least I feel sure about the background (yes Olivier, I read ALL comments thoroughly) Nice weekend and safe trip to everybody. Look forward to LAX. Carlos Raúl Gutierrez -- carlosraulg(a)gmail.com Skype carlos.raulg +506 6060 7176

1 0