August 2013 - atrt2 - lists.icann.org

Face to face meeting in Durban
by Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Aug. 13, 2013

Aug. 13, 2013

Alice, I´m a little bit lost here. I'm looking for transcripts/recordings of the Durban Face to Face meetings but they are not in good order. For example, on the Face to Face meeting with GNSO I found this, http://durban47.icann.org/meetings/durban2013/transcript-atrt-prep-14jul13-… which is obviously no the right transcript. I also have a hard time opening the recordings. Carlos Raúl Gutierrez Miembro del Consejo Presidente pro tempore REGULATEL www.sutel.go.cr +506 4000 0010 (Ofi) +506 8335 2487 (Cel) +506 2215 6821 (Fax)

2 1

Fwd: and now, for something completely different -- SSR
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 12, 2013

Aug. 12, 2013

A message from Mikey O'Connor. It was sent to the threat that was preparing for the PDP Chairs discussion on Wednesday, but it goes WAY over an above the original subject and into all sorts of compelling issues, many of which can readily fit into "accountability and transparency". Alan >From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> >Subject: and now, for something completely different -- SSR >Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 22:06:15 -0500 >CC: 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: Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Roberto Gaetano > <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, > "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele(a)blacknight.com>, > "rickert(a)anwaelte.de > Rickert" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, James Bladel > <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz > <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, "jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz" > <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com>, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > >hi all, > >one last picture from Mikey before our call on Wednesday. > >Olivier will know this picture -- it's one we developed in the DSSA >together. so there's perhaps less need for us to discuss this one >on our call (where *is* that agenda Alan?). > >i bring this forward because i think ICANN is getting really close >to splitting the root with all this late maneuvering around the SSR >issues (dotless domains, name collision, internal certs, >etc.). i'm levering these questions to the ATRT into this >conversation because i was the GNSO co-chair of the recently-dead >DSSA working group. here goes... > >-- where is the connection between the SSAC and action? why are >reports that point to serious SSR issues not finding their way into >policy discussions in a timely way? as a test case please consider >tracing the path that SAC045 took, and determine why we didn't have >Lyman Chapin's report on namespace collision commissioned and >completed 3 years ago. why didn't the GNSO pick up on this and >launch a discussion/investigation/PDP? > >-- does ICANN (the corporation) have a conflict of interest, now >that so much of its budget is dependent on the revenue anticipated >from new gTLDs? is it losing its place as trusted steward for the >root because of that? > >-- has ICANN gotten so big and so layered with complexity and >privilege that it has forgotten how easy it is to stand up a >separate root? to a person, my corporate and ISP uber-network-geek >pals are saying that the easiest way to take care of all the >problems caused by new gTLDs may be to simply edit those domains out >of a privately operated root zone. it used to be hard to stand up >a robust root -- now it's easy, cheap and may well be a lot less >work that chasing down all the troubles that could be caused by new gTLDs. > >-- in olden times, alternate root providers were viewed with nothing >but distain. but suppose that the largest corporate and >connectivity-provider DNS operators decided to collaborate on a >"clean" DNS root zone that simply pointed to the the legacy >registries and treated the ICANN new-gTLDs the way that all >alternate TLD/zone providers have been treated? > >-- here's another investigation the ATRT may want to pursue. why >does the staff suggest a tiered risk-management approach to >name-collision, and try to make it sound like InterIsles' report is >the source of that approach, when that's not the case? InterIsle >describes 5 approaches to managing the risk in their report, none of >which include the option that the staff constructed. yet through >tricky wording, the two 5-August staff reports attempt to make it >sound as though they're carrying out the recommendations made in the >report when in fact they're cherry-picking their way to the >speediest rollout schedule. > >-- by the way, what happened to the bottom-up multi-stakeholder >process in any of these late-breaking SSR issues? sure, we're out >for comments right now. but then what? this is TMCH on steroids >and this time we may see ICANN lose its credibility with the >technical community that underpins this hallucination we all agree >to share. what if the trust relationship is broken and we geeks >just stick our hands in our pockets and walk on down the road? > >-- why did ICANN take so long to react to the constant barrage of >communication (from Verisign and others) about risks related to new >gTLDs, and why is that reaction still so muted? what on earth is >going on with the communications between Verisign and the NTIA? > >-- in short -- what is becoming of the "grand bargain" that was >struck back in the late '90's? are "gaps in policy, management, or >leadership threatening to split the root"? the DSSA drew this >picture a couple years ago -- now our predictions (and those of the >Internet Society on which they're based) seem to be coming true. > >there. that ought to provide some entertainment for the last couple >days before our call. :-) > >discuss away, > >mikey > > > > > > > >[] > > > >PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: ><http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for >Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > >

2 1

My contributions
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 12, 2013

Aug. 12, 2013

I was charged with drafting the starting point for recommendations on the GNSO PDP and Cross-constituency work. For a bunch of reasons, I have not been able to put nearly sufficient effort into this. The PDP recommendation is likely to change as our external expert works, but based on the discussions that we had with groups at Durban, greatly augmented by the PDP Chairs thread that I forwarded, some of the themes of our recommendation are already pretty solid. I have not addressed early GAC involvement, as this is partially covered by Fiona's contributions and I thought it better to work from one document. I will, however give an early view of how I am thinking about things now. We have usually used words like "the GAC must participate in GNSO PDPs". I now think that wording it like this is setting an operational methodology instead of first setting the setting the goal. It makes little sense (to me) to have a PDP deliver its recommendations to the Board and then have the GAC re-open issues that concern its members at the Board level. I think that the goal is ensuring that issues of interest to governments and the GAC are known to the PDP WG, and are fairly considered, and that as recommendations are formulated, there is a feedback loop involving the GAC. Exactly HOW to do that is not clear, but unless we set it as a target, we will never achieve it. There has been a lot of rhetoric about GAC members not being able to sustain the presumed level of effort that goes into GNSO PDP. Before we try to figure out mechanisms for achieving the above goal, we need to recognize that: - the efforts described above have occurred (in my recollections) for only one or two PDPs, and then only for a few weeks (and due to Board deadlines/ultimatums) - most PDPs are about operational issues that have proven of no interest to the GAC - the new gTLD PDP, which has received so much after0the0fact focus, is never likely to be repeat for a whole bunch of reasons (including having learned a bunch of lessons in the ensuing years). - there WILL be PDPs of interest to the GAC coming up soon (RAA, son-of-Whois) and we really need to fix this problem quickly. On the Cross-constituency issue, I re-wrote this document several times and am almost as unhappy with the final one as the earlier versions. One of the reasons was that although we often talk about the need for more cross-const work, other than the specific GAC-GNSO and some targeted GNSO-ALAC issues, iI found it hard to come up with concrete examples. Mikey's note that I just forwarded covers one I missed. Alan

1 0

Recommendation finances
by Lise Fuhr Aug. 12, 2013

Aug. 12, 2013

Dear all, I couldn't resist the temptation to make a recommendation regarding finances. It is a very rough first draft, that I would like to discuss at our meeting Wednesday. Looking forward to seeing you all again. Best, Lise

1 0

Draft template on Legitimacy/Outreach
by Jørgen C Abild Andersen Aug. 12, 2013

Aug. 12, 2013

Dear Review Team colleagues Please find attached a first draft template on Legitimacy/Outreach for our discussions in LA. Looking forward to meeting you all again. Jørgen

1 1

Communications for/with the board templates
by David Conrad Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

Hi, Enclosed is my attempt at (partially) filling the templates associated with "Communications for/with the Board". Hope it's helpful. Apologies for being a bit late. Regards, -drc

1 0

Re: [atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 11
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

No message. Seq No omitted by mistake.

1 0

Re: [atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 22
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

>From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, 'Alan Greenberg' > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, > "'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'" <michele(a)blacknight.com>, > "rickert(a)anwaelte.de" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, "mike(a)haven2.com" > <mike(a)haven2.com>, > "jbladel(a)godaddy.com" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, 'Paul Diaz' > <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, > "jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz" <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, 'Avri > Doria' <avri(a)ella.com> >CC: '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: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Thread-Topic: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Thread-Index: Ac6TbpCxEv+qsjhaT6u4cVGKV6uMpQBNpv0AAAIPNAAASphvAAABMvyg >Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:11:40 +0000 >Accept-Language: en-US > >Regarding F2F meetings, it is helpful to recall >that there were several F2F meetings held in the >New gTLD PDP that I believe were very >productive. In especially complicated PDPs, I >think that F2F meetings can be quite helpful but >I dont think that it is as necessary in less difficult PDPs. > >Chuck > >From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] >Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 6:42 AM >To: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele >Neylon - Blacknight'; rickert(a)anwaelte.de; >mike(a)haven2.com; Gomes, Chuck; >jbladel(a)godaddy.com; 'Paul Diaz'; jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria' >Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute' >Subject: R: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 > >I realize now that I did not answer the last question: >Without a threat hanging over heads, can the >process work? Even as Roberto suggests, with F2F >meeting and professional facilitation. >I do not have the perfect answer, but I can say a couple of things. >As I commented before, the ultimate decision has >to come from the Board, and if the WG does not >come to a conclusion within the (clearly set in >advance, not decided abruptly) time frame, the >Board has free hands in the decision. The threat >is, in this case, that it is not known in >advance what the Board would decide. This means >that it would be ethically incorrect for >Directors to speak with third parties about >matters on which a PDP is ongoing, to avoid trumping the PDP itself. >The second point is a bit more complicated. >Having been the co-chair of VI-WG I might be >biased, but I strongly believe that it was not a >lost cause to come to a more meaningful >consensus than the one we have reached. The >strategy that Mikey and myself had, once it was >clear that we were starting running in circles >without much progress, was on one hand to >surprise the WG by trying to propose views of >the problem from a different angle (some >remember attempts that were funny, but serious, >like the atoms-molecules) and on the other hand >logging the minimum common consensus, i.e. what >we could present in a report as a step forward, >although minimal. I hoped that, once >participants could get out from a paradigm, some >progress could be achieved, and on the other >hand that, if minimum result was achieved, that >we could think of a second run to try to get a >refinement. ICANN has used professional >facilitators in several occasions during >meetings, so it should not be a problem to have this kind of support. >I do remember the energy and the participation >when we met F2F. There is also another element >that has to be taken into account (and I speak >from my experience of former Chair of the >DNSO-GA): when people are meeting in person, >they do not have the reactions that produce, for >instance, inflammatory emails: there are less >chances to be misunderstood, the body language >helps completing the information flow, people >that are normally shy can say a few words in >small groups bringing new ideas, Yes, I >strongly believe that with more F2F and >professional facilitation we would have had substantial progress. >Cheers, >R. > > > >Da: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] >Inviato: venerdì 9 agosto 2013 01:06 >A: Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele >Neylon - Blacknight'; ><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; ><mailto:mike@haven2.com>mike(a)haven2.com; 'Chuck >Gomes'; ><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com; >'Paul Diaz'; ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria' >Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute' >Oggetto: Re: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 > >Roberto, and Mikey and others, > >A question. > >On an issue such as VI, where both emotions and >investments are heavy, what is the incentive for >participants to make concessions and try to find some middle ground. > >Although it didn't work, perhaps as Mikey >identified due to timing and changing >time-lines, in the past the incentive has been a >Board ultimatum that a compromise be found by a >certain date or else, with or else being that >the Board will decide and you may not like what >they do. It worked with the STI, and also with >the GNSO re-org (although perhaps with a questionable outcome in that case). > >Some Board members have been prepared to do that >as they eventually did with VI, but others have >said that the only such decisions that the Board >should make should be do-no-harm interim >decisions and punt back to the GNSO as it has >done with the IDO/INGO protection. > >Without a threat hanging over heads, can the >process work? Even as Roberto suggests, with F2F >meeting and professional facilitation. > >Alan > >At 08/08/2013 06:07 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote: >Sorry, I will be unable to make the 14 August >call, I will be available only in the late >evening (CET) that is not one of the option offered. >However, I would like to contribute to the >discussion prior to the call. I have no problem >in having my comments posted publicly. >I will articulate a better contribution >tomorrow, but for the time being I would like to make the following points: >· Agree with Mikey on incentivating more participation by new people >· The charter has to be defined clearly, >but not only it has to be very clear what will >be the process after the conclusion of the WG >(in the VI-WG we spent hours to discuss what >will happen next if we dont reach consensus >Ill elaborate in a follow up post on why this is important >· On complicated WGs, resources are >necessary, still quoting the VI experience, much >progress has been made in a F2F meeting >· As part of the GNSO Review, we stated >that some resources should be made available for >the WG Chairs this is important when the WG is >complicated I am sure that in the final >report of the GNSO Review WG we mentioned >training for the Chairpersons, use of facilitators, and so on >· To the best of my knowledge, there are >lessons learned sessions, but there has never >been an effort to share experiences among WG >Chairs or record for the upcoming WGs what went >OK and what went wrong in previous WGs, >successful tricks used, approaches that brought >deadlocks, a.s.o. much is left to the oral >tradition and to the memory of the WG members >· For the certain stakeholders have not >been able to adequately participate issue, I >have my own opinions, it is also linked with the >chair warming issue since this comment is >going to be public, I will wait until my mind is >fresh and I will be able to articulate my thoughts in a politically correct way >Please be aware that I have not been active in >the PDP process for more than one year, and >therefore I might have raised points that are >currently incorrect or superseded by events. >Best regards, >Roberto > > > >Da: Alice Jansen [ mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org] >Inviato: mercoledì 7 agosto 2013 15:04 >A: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; ><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; ><mailto:mike@haven2.com>mike(a)haven2.com; Chuck >Gomes; ><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com; >Paul Diaz; ><mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com; ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; >Avri Doria; Alan Greenberg >Cc: Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute >Oggetto: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Priorità: Alta > > >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

1 0

Re: [atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 23
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

>From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> >To: 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' > <michele(a)blacknight.com>, > <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, <mike(a)haven2.com>, "'Chuck > Gomes'" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, 'Paul Diaz' > <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, > <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, 'Avri Doria' <avri(a)ella.com>, > 'Alan Greenberg' <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >CC: '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: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 16:12:59 +0200 >Thread-Index: AQIHQzpoViB7WhzGdQkLWv+WPUgapQHgC1jsmQ4KK8A= > >After the previous discussion, I need to elaborate only on these points: >· Agree with Mikey on incentivating more participation by new people >· To the best of my knowledge, there are >lessons learned sessions, but there has never >been an effort to share experiences among WG >Chairs or record for the upcoming WGs what went >OK and what went wrong in previous WGs, >successful tricks used, approaches that brought >deadlocks, a.s.o. much is left to the oral >tradition and to the memory of the WG members >· For the certain stakeholders have not >been able to adequately participate issue, I >have my own opinions, it is also linked with the >chair warming issue since this comment is >going to be public, I will wait until my mind is >fresh and I will be able to articulate my thoughts in a politically correct way > >The first and last points are connected, so let >me start with the easy one, the lessons learned. >As far as I know, but I might be wrong, while a >post mortem session is generally held at the end >of a WG, there is little coordination among WGs, >except for the synthesis made in the Name Council. >It might be useful to have cross-WG sessions, >like a meeting of the WG Chairs, past, present, >and candidate future, to share experiences and >tricks. This can be done as an ad-hoc session >every ICANN meeting, for instance. If the >suggestion of a facilitator is accepted, the >facilitator(s) should participate to the >session, to understand what are the main issues >and problems that are encountered in running >WGs. Of course, the sessions shall be open, so >that we can be transparent about the issues and >also take the benefit of contributions by the audience. >Maybe we could try to assess the PDP taking a >frame of reference, like for instance the >Capability Maturity Model (CMM or CMMI) and >check which are the process areas that need more >attention. Incidentally, CMMI certification for >the policy development process could be an excellent marketing tool. > >About participation, I agree with Mikey that we >should incentivate new people. However, maybe we >should first analyse the composition of the WGs >and check whether there are any stakeholder >groups (in the broad sense) that are >insufficiently represented (or insufficiently >active, if we take the point about the chair >warming issue). While it is always good to have >a new generation of participants, before >studying incentives to ensure participation of >new people we should check whether we have >chronic absence of some voices, and rectify this problem first. >I would like also to be clear about the chair >warming: I am not at all in favour of people >volounteering just to add a line on the CV or, >worse, to get a free ticket to some meeting. >However, there are situations in which we need >to accept people in an observer role, i.e. >people who will listen but might not contribute >much. Not everybody has the same approach. Not >everybody is ready to jump into an overheated >arena to express an opinion that might be heavily criticized. >Last but not least, every participant to a WG >representing a component of the ICANN >multi-stakeholder world carries the >responsibility of representing this component. >And his/her behavior will naturally contribute >to the opinion that the other folks will have >about that component. So, I assume that the part >of the ICANN organization, either a >constituency, a stakeholder group, an advisory >committee, or other, will be somewhat (although >indirectly) responsible of the behavior of that >individual, and I assume will take a corrective action. > >Cheers, >Roberto > > > >Da: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] >Inviato: venerdì 9 agosto 2013 00:07 >A: 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon - >Blacknight'; 'rickert(a)anwaelte.de'; >'mike(a)haven2.com'; 'Chuck Gomes'; >'jbladel(a)godaddy.com'; 'Paul Diaz'; >'jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Alan Greenberg' >Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute' >Oggetto: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 > >Sorry, I will be unable to make the 14 August >call, I will be available only in the late >evening (CET) that is not one of the option offered. >However, I would like to contribute to the >discussion prior to the call. I have no problem >in having my comments posted publicly. >I will articulate a better contribution >tomorrow, but for the time being I would like to make the following points: >· Agree with Mikey on incentivating more participation by new people >· The charter has to be defined clearly, >but not only it has to be very clear what will >be the process after the conclusion of the WG >(in the VI-WG we spent hours to discuss what >will happen next if we dont reach consensus >Ill elaborate in a follow up post on why this is important >· On complicated WGs, resources are >necessary, still quoting the VI experience, much >progress has been made in a F2F meeting >· As part of the GNSO Review, we stated >that some resources should be made available for >the WG Chairs this is important when the WG is >complicated I am sure that in the final >report of the GNSO Review WG we mentioned >training for the Chairpersons, use of facilitators, and so on >· To the best of my knowledge, there are >lessons learned sessions, but there has never >been an effort to share experiences among WG >Chairs or record for the upcoming WGs what went >OK and what went wrong in previous WGs, >successful tricks used, approaches that brought >deadlocks, a.s.o. much is left to the oral >tradition and to the memory of the WG members >· For the certain stakeholders have not >been able to adequately participate issue, I >have my own opinions, it is also linked with the >chair warming issue since this comment is >going to be public, I will wait until my mind is >fresh and I will be able to articulate my thoughts in a politically correct way >Please be aware that I have not been active in >the PDP process for more than one year, and >therefore I might have raised points that are >currently incorrect or superseded by events. >Best regards, >Roberto > > > >Da: Alice Jansen >[<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org] >Inviato: mercoledì 7 agosto 2013 15:04 >A: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; ><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; ><mailto:mike@haven2.com>mike(a)haven2.com; Chuck >Gomes; ><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com; >Paul Diaz; ><mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com; ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; >Avri Doria; Alan Greenberg >Cc: Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute >Oggetto: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Priorità: Alta > > >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

1 0

Re: [atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 24
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

>From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> >To: "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, 'Alan Greenberg' > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, > "'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'" <michele(a)blacknight.com>, > <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, > <mike(a)haven2.com>, <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, 'Paul Diaz' > <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, > <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, 'Avri Doria' <avri(a)ella.com> >CC: '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: R: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 16:14:04 +0200 > >Agree. >R. > > >Da: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] >Inviato: sabato 10 agosto 2013 16:12 >A: Roberto Gaetano; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Alice >Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'; >rickert(a)anwaelte.de; mike(a)haven2.com; >jbladel(a)godaddy.com; 'Paul Diaz'; jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria' >Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute' >Oggetto: RE: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 > >Regarding F2F meetings, it is helpful to recall >that there were several F2F meetings held in the >New gTLD PDP that I believe were very >productive. In especially complicated PDPs, I >think that F2F meetings can be quite helpful but >I dont think that it is as necessary in less difficult PDPs. > >Chuck > >From: Roberto Gaetano >[<mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] >Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 6:42 AM >To: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele >Neylon - Blacknight'; ><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; ><mailto:mike@haven2.com>mike(a)haven2.com; Gomes, >Chuck; ><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com; >'Paul Diaz'; ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria' >Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute' >Subject: R: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 > >I realize now that I did not answer the last question: >Without a threat hanging over heads, can the >process work? Even as Roberto suggests, with F2F >meeting and professional facilitation. >I do not have the perfect answer, but I can say a couple of things. >As I commented before, the ultimate decision has >to come from the Board, and if the WG does not >come to a conclusion within the (clearly set in >advance, not decided abruptly) time frame, the >Board has free hands in the decision. The threat >is, in this case, that it is not known in >advance what the Board would decide. This means >that it would be ethically incorrect for >Directors to speak with third parties about >matters on which a PDP is ongoing, to avoid trumping the PDP itself. >The second point is a bit more complicated. >Having been the co-chair of VI-WG I might be >biased, but I strongly believe that it was not a >lost cause to come to a more meaningful >consensus than the one we have reached. The >strategy that Mikey and myself had, once it was >clear that we were starting running in circles >without much progress, was on one hand to >surprise the WG by trying to propose views of >the problem from a different angle (some >remember attempts that were funny, but serious, >like the atoms-molecules) and on the other hand >logging the minimum common consensus, i.e. what >we could present in a report as a step forward, >although minimal. I hoped that, once >participants could get out from a paradigm, some >progress could be achieved, and on the other >hand that, if minimum result was achieved, that >we could think of a second run to try to get a >refinement. ICANN has used professional >facilitators in several occasions during >meetings, so it should not be a problem to have this kind of support. >I do remember the energy and the participation >when we met F2F. There is also another element >that has to be taken into account (and I speak >from my experience of former Chair of the >DNSO-GA): when people are meeting in person, >they do not have the reactions that produce, for >instance, inflammatory emails: there are less >chances to be misunderstood, the body language >helps completing the information flow, people >that are normally shy can say a few words in >small groups bringing new ideas, Yes, I >strongly believe that with more F2F and >professional facilitation we would have had substantial progress. >Cheers, >R. > > > >Da: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] >Inviato: venerdì 9 agosto 2013 01:06 >A: Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele >Neylon - Blacknight'; ><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; ><mailto:mike@haven2.com>mike(a)haven2.com; 'Chuck >Gomes'; ><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com; >'Paul Diaz'; ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria' >Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute' >Oggetto: Re: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 > >Roberto, and Mikey and others, > >A question. > >On an issue such as VI, where both emotions and >investments are heavy, what is the incentive for >participants to make concessions and try to find some middle ground. > >Although it didn't work, perhaps as Mikey >identified due to timing and changing >time-lines, in the past the incentive has been a >Board ultimatum that a compromise be found by a >certain date or else, with or else being that >the Board will decide and you may not like what >they do. It worked with the STI, and also with >the GNSO re-org (although perhaps with a questionable outcome in that case). > >Some Board members have been prepared to do that >as they eventually did with VI, but others have >said that the only such decisions that the Board >should make should be do-no-harm interim >decisions and punt back to the GNSO as it has >done with the IDO/INGO protection. > >Without a threat hanging over heads, can the >process work? Even as Roberto suggests, with F2F >meeting and professional facilitation. > >Alan > >At 08/08/2013 06:07 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote: >Sorry, I will be unable to make the 14 August >call, I will be available only in the late >evening (CET) that is not one of the option offered. >However, I would like to contribute to the >discussion prior to the call. I have no problem >in having my comments posted publicly. >I will articulate a better contribution >tomorrow, but for the time being I would like to make the following points: >· Agree with Mikey on incentivating more participation by new people >· The charter has to be defined clearly, >but not only it has to be very clear what will >be the process after the conclusion of the WG >(in the VI-WG we spent hours to discuss what >will happen next if we dont reach consensus >Ill elaborate in a follow up post on why this is important >· On complicated WGs, resources are >necessary, still quoting the VI experience, much >progress has been made in a F2F meeting >· As part of the GNSO Review, we stated >that some resources should be made available for >the WG Chairs this is important when the WG is >complicated I am sure that in the final >report of the GNSO Review WG we mentioned >training for the Chairpersons, use of facilitators, and so on >· To the best of my knowledge, there are >lessons learned sessions, but there has never >been an effort to share experiences among WG >Chairs or record for the upcoming WGs what went >OK and what went wrong in previous WGs, >successful tricks used, approaches that brought >deadlocks, a.s.o. much is left to the oral >tradition and to the memory of the WG members >· For the certain stakeholders have not >been able to adequately participate issue, I >have my own opinions, it is also linked with the >chair warming issue since this comment is >going to be public, I will wait until my mind is >fresh and I will be able to articulate my thoughts in a politically correct way >Please be aware that I have not been active in >the PDP process for more than one year, and >therefore I might have raised points that are >currently incorrect or superseded by events. >Best regards, >Roberto > > > >Da: Alice Jansen [ mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org] >Inviato: mercoledì 7 agosto 2013 15:04 >A: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; ><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; ><mailto:mike@haven2.com>mike(a)haven2.com; Chuck >Gomes; ><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com; >Paul Diaz; ><mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com; ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; >Avri Doria; Alan Greenberg >Cc: Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute >Oggetto: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Priorità: Alta > > >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

1 0