atrt2
Threads by month
- ----- 2026 -----
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2025 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2024 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2023 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2022 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2021 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2020 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2019 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2018 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2017 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2016 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2015 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2014 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2013 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- 643 discussions
>From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>
>To: "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, 'Mike O'Connor' <mike(a)haven2.com>,
> 'Alan Greenberg' <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>
>CC: 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'
> <michele(a)blacknight.com>,
> <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>,
> "'Paul Diaz'" <pdiaz(a)pir.org>,
> <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: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 16:23:09 +0200
>
>I stand corrected, thanks.
>R.
>
>
>Da: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
>Inviato: sabato 10 agosto 2013 16:19
>A: Roberto Gaetano; 'Mike O'Connor'; 'Alan Greenberg'
>Cc: 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon -
>Blacknight'; rickert(a)anwaelte.de;
>jbladel(a)godaddy.com; 'Paul Diaz';
>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria'; 'Marika
>Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
>Oggetto: RE: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>
>Well said Roberto. I cant help but make a
>non-constructive comment by pointing out that
>you are dating yourself when you refer to the
>Name Council, the name of the GNSO Council
>under the original DNSO. For those that dont
>know, Roberto has been involved since before
>ICANN was formed in 1998, so he has a wealth of experience.
>
>Chuck
>
>From: Roberto Gaetano
>[<mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 5:46 AM
>To: 'Mike O'Connor'; 'Alan Greenberg'
>Cc: 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon -
>Blacknight';
><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de;
>Gomes, Chuck;
><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com;
>'Paul Diaz';
><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz;
>'Avri Doria'; 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B.
>Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
>Subject: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>
>Adding to what Mikey has already said, I think
>that what was bad was not that the Board set a
>deadline, but that this deadline came abruptly.
>I recall that we had a lot of time spent
>(wasted, IMHO) trying to second guess what the
>Board would have done in terms of setting a time
>limit, what the default decision of the Board
>would be in case we do not get a consensus, and
>other things that were not directly aiming at reaching a consensus position.
>I believe that the path should be clear and
>known in advance. The Board has all the rights
>to set a (reasonable) deadline in advance, it
>helps the planning of the WG. Of course, the
>deadline can be extended if needed and if
>reasonably motivated (that happened for VI as
>well). What is disruptive is the statement: OK
>guys, we have enough, you have one more week and thats it.
>Another element that is creating problems is
>that it is not clear what happens in case of
>failure to reach consensus. As Alan (if I am not
>mistaken) points out, there are different
>schools of thought on the Board on whether the
>Board will have to make a decision, or whether
>the ball should be punted to GNSO for another round.
>Personally, I favour the former. The ball can go
>back to GNSO Council only if there is legitimate
>and motivated reason to believe that the PDP was
>done badly and that another WG, maybe with a
>different charter, can address the matter
>differently and have more chances to solve the
>issue in a satisfactory way (incidentally, it
>should not be the Board to decide this, but the
>Name Council). But if it is to have another run
>with the same people about the same issue, it
>will be a loss of time. Not only, it will give
>the temptation to the Name Council to solve the
>matter with a vote, absent a PDP, which will be
>a very bad case. If there is no consensus, the
>only authority that can make a decision is the Board.
>I am aware that this will raise some issues:
>some folks, when they see that the PDP is going
>in a direction that does not suits their wishes,
>could decide to stall the PDP and lobby the
>Board instead. This is a risk that we must be
>able to take. Lobbying the Board has always
>happened and will always happen, but in time we
>will be able to grow in the consensus of the
>stakeholders cultural approach to minimize this
>risk. After all, the very reason for ICANN to
>exist is the multi-stakeholder model, and the
>consensus of the stakeholders as legitimation
>for the decisions, so we do not have other
>choice than to go ahead on this path.
>In summary:
>- clear timeframe set in advance, extendable if
>motivated need exists (i.e.: we are getting there, we just need more time)
>- if closure with no consensus ball back to Name Council to evaluate results
>- if no reason to believe that another run will
>solve the issues, ball to the Board who has the final decision.
>Cheers,
>Roberto
>
>
>
>Da: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com]
>Inviato: venerdì 9 agosto 2013 01:51
>A: Alan Greenberg
>Cc: Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele
>Neylon - Blacknight';
><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de;
>'Chuck Gomes';
><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com;
>'Paul Diaz';
><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz;
>'Avri Doria'; 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B.
>Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
>Oggetto: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>
>i'm sorry to hear that my VI Senior co-chair
>Roberto won't be able to make the call. is
>there any way to add some options so that he can attend?
>
>several points to amplify about "complicated" WGs:
>
>-- in my view it would be helpful if they were
>chartered with that "complicated" aspect in mind
>(i.e. more resources, healthy dose of senior
>participants, aggressive recruiting,
>facilitation/mediation options available,
>etc.). we may want to think about the upcoming
>Policy and Implementation Working Group in that light.
>
>-- i agree with Roberto (as i always do) -- in
>VI, we made a lot of progress in a face-to-face
>session facilitated by an amateur (me). i take
>the blame for losing a whole lot of ground in a
>face-to-face meeting later in the week where we
>were all tired and shouldn't have been
>meeting. better-planned sessions, held outside
>of the stressful week of an ICANN meeting,
>planned and led by somebody who knew what they
>were doing, might have captured a consensus.
>
>-- i think using Board ultimatums is probably
>not the best way to motivate WGs, especially if
>those rules of engagement are fluid. neither
>the STI nor the GNSO re-org were working-groups,
>so i didn't participate and don't have a direct
>comment. but i've participated in a bunch of
>working groups and none of them have benefited
>by being tinkered with by the Board. the latest
>example is the cross-AC/SO DNS Security and
>Stability Analysis working group. Olivier can fill you in on the gory details.
>
>-- one of the pieces that was never completed in
>the new GNSO PDP was a self-assessment cycle for
>WGs as they are wrapping up. the Standing
>Committee on Improvements is near the end of
>developing that instrument and is planning to
>test it very soon. i think the results of those
>questionnaires will be a big help to other WG
>chairs, and the questions we ask will also give
>chairs a big hint on what they should (and
>shouldn't) be doing. here's a link to the draft
>-- it's likely to change a bit once we've run it through a test cycle:
>
>
><http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/>http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/
>
>
>On Aug 8, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Alan Greenberg
><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>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
>
>
>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
>From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>
>To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, 'Mike O'Connor'
> <mike(a)haven2.com>
>CC: '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>,
> "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>, '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: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:22:21 +0000
>
>Excellent point.
>
>Chuck
>
>From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 10:19 AM
>To: 'Mike O'Connor'; Gomes, Chuck
>Cc: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele
>Neylon - Blacknight'; rickert(a)anwaelte.de;
>jbladel(a)godaddy.com; 'Paul Diaz';
>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria'; 'Marika
>Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
>Subject: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>
>I also agree never disagree with the co-chair,
>never disagree with the keyboard player.
>However, I wonder whether this should not be
>extended to other bodies in ICANN.
>I have the impression, for instance, that some
>of the frictions with the GAC come from the
>failure to understand the PDP, as basic tool for policy development.
>I understand that GAC representatives cannot
>actively participate to policy development
>they would otherwise undermine their right to
>intervene later on on the developed policy, and
>they cannot take positions in the WGs without
>consultation with their governments but
>nothing prevents the possibility to have them as silent observers.
>Cheers,
>R.
>
>
>Da: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com]
>Inviato: venerdì 9 agosto 2013 21:14
>A: Gomes, Chuck
>Cc: Alan Greenberg; Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice
>Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight';
><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de;
><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com;
>'Paul Diaz';
><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz;
>'Avri Doria'; 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B.
>Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
>Oggetto: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>
>i REALLY strongly agree with Chuck's idea.
>
>
>On Aug 9, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Gomes, Chuck"
><<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote:
>
>Regarding the issue of Board ultimatums, I have
>felt for some time that most of the Board
>members and some senior staff do not have a very
>good appreciation for the working group
>process. Moreover, I dont think it there is an
>effective way to get a reasonable appreciation
>if you havent participated in one. So I wonder
>whether we should suggest that all Board members
>and executive staff should participate in at
>least one WG. I understand that they have a
>heavy workload and I respect that but even if
>they were to participate on the WG list and
>attend at least 25% of the meetings every two
>months, I think they would be in a lot better
>position to make decisions regarding PDP results.
>
>Chuck
>
>From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com]
>Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 7:51 PM
>To: Alan Greenberg
>Cc: Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele
>Neylon - Blacknight';
><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de;
>Gomes, Chuck;
><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com;
>'Paul
>Diaz';<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz;
>'Avri Doria'; 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B.
>Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>
>i'm sorry to hear that my VI Senior co-chair
>Roberto won't be able to make the call. is
>there any way to add some options so that he can attend?
>
>several points to amplify about "complicated" WGs:
>
>-- in my view it would be helpful if they were
>chartered with that "complicated" aspect in mind
>(i.e. more resources, healthy dose of senior
>participants, aggressive recruiting,
>facilitation/mediation options available,
>etc.). we may want to think about the upcoming
>Policy and Implementation Working Group in that light.
>
>-- i agree with Roberto (as i always do) -- in
>VI, we made a lot of progress in a face-to-face
>session facilitated by an amateur (me). i take
>the blame for losing a whole lot of ground in a
>face-to-face meeting later in the week where we
>were all tired and shouldn't have been
>meeting. better-planned sessions, held outside
>of the stressful week of an ICANN meeting,
>planned and led by somebody who knew what they
>were doing, might have captured a consensus.
>
>-- i think using Board ultimatums is probably
>not the best way to motivate WGs, especially if
>those rules of engagement are fluid. neither
>the STI nor the GNSO re-org were working-groups,
>so i didn't participate and don't have a direct
>comment. but i've participated in a bunch of
>working groups and none of them have benefited
>by being tinkered with by the Board. the latest
>example is the cross-AC/SO DNS Security and
>Stability Analysis working group. Olivier can fill you in on the gory details.
>
>-- one of the pieces that was never completed in
>the new GNSO PDP was a self-assessment cycle for
>WGs as they are wrapping up. the Standing
>Committee on Improvements is near the end of
>developing that instrument and is planning to
>test it very soon. i think the results of those
>questionnaires will be a big help to other WG
>chairs, and the questions we ask will also give
>chairs a big hint on what they should (and
>shouldn't) be doing. here's a link to the draft
>-- it's likely to change a bit once we've run it through a test cycle:
>
>
><http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/>http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/
>
>
>On Aug 8, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Alan Greenberg
><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>
>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
>
>
>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
>From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>
>To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, 'Mike O'Connor'
> <mike(a)haven2.com>, 'Alan Greenberg' <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>
>CC: 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'
> <michele(a)blacknight.com>,
> "rickert(a)anwaelte.de" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>,
> "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>, '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: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:19:29 +0000
>
>Well said Roberto. I cant help but make a
>non-constructive comment by pointing out that
>you are dating yourself when you refer to the
>Name Council, the name of the GNSO Council
>under the original DNSO. For those that dont
>know, Roberto has been involved since before
>ICANN was formed in 1998, so he has a wealth of experience.
>
>Chuck
>
>From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 5:46 AM
>To: 'Mike O'Connor'; 'Alan Greenberg'
>Cc: 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon -
>Blacknight'; rickert(a)anwaelte.de; Gomes, Chuck;
>jbladel(a)godaddy.com; 'Paul Diaz';
>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria'; 'Marika
>Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
>Subject: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>
>Adding to what Mikey has already said, I think
>that what was bad was not that the Board set a
>deadline, but that this deadline came abruptly.
>I recall that we had a lot of time spent
>(wasted, IMHO) trying to second guess what the
>Board would have done in terms of setting a time
>limit, what the default decision of the Board
>would be in case we do not get a consensus, and
>other things that were not directly aiming at reaching a consensus position.
>I believe that the path should be clear and
>known in advance. The Board has all the rights
>to set a (reasonable) deadline in advance, it
>helps the planning of the WG. Of course, the
>deadline can be extended if needed and if
>reasonably motivated (that happened for VI as
>well). What is disruptive is the statement: OK
>guys, we have enough, you have one more week and thats it.
>Another element that is creating problems is
>that it is not clear what happens in case of
>failure to reach consensus. As Alan (if I am not
>mistaken) points out, there are different
>schools of thought on the Board on whether the
>Board will have to make a decision, or whether
>the ball should be punted to GNSO for another round.
>Personally, I favour the former. The ball can go
>back to GNSO Council only if there is legitimate
>and motivated reason to believe that the PDP was
>done badly and that another WG, maybe with a
>different charter, can address the matter
>differently and have more chances to solve the
>issue in a satisfactory way (incidentally, it
>should not be the Board to decide this, but the
>Name Council). But if it is to have another run
>with the same people about the same issue, it
>will be a loss of time. Not only, it will give
>the temptation to the Name Council to solve the
>matter with a vote, absent a PDP, which will be
>a very bad case. If there is no consensus, the
>only authority that can make a decision is the Board.
>I am aware that this will raise some issues:
>some folks, when they see that the PDP is going
>in a direction that does not suits their wishes,
>could decide to stall the PDP and lobby the
>Board instead. This is a risk that we must be
>able to take. Lobbying the Board has always
>happened and will always happen, but in time we
>will be able to grow in the consensus of the
>stakeholders cultural approach to minimize this
>risk. After all, the very reason for ICANN to
>exist is the multi-stakeholder model, and the
>consensus of the stakeholders as legitimation
>for the decisions, so we do not have other
>choice than to go ahead on this path.
>In summary:
>- clear timeframe set in advance, extendable if
>motivated need exists (i.e.: we are getting there, we just need more time)
>- if closure with no consensus ball back to Name Council to evaluate results
>- if no reason to believe that another run will
>solve the issues, ball to the Board who has the final decision.
>Cheers,
>Roberto
>
>
>
>Da: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com]
>Inviato: venerdì 9 agosto 2013 01:51
>A: Alan Greenberg
>Cc: Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele
>Neylon - Blacknight';
><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de;
>'Chuck Gomes';
><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com;
>'Paul Diaz';
><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz;
>'Avri Doria'; 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B.
>Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
>Oggetto: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>
>i'm sorry to hear that my VI Senior co-chair
>Roberto won't be able to make the call. is
>there any way to add some options so that he can attend?
>
>several points to amplify about "complicated" WGs:
>
>-- in my view it would be helpful if they were
>chartered with that "complicated" aspect in mind
>(i.e. more resources, healthy dose of senior
>participants, aggressive recruiting,
>facilitation/mediation options available,
>etc.). we may want to think about the upcoming
>Policy and Implementation Working Group in that light.
>
>-- i agree with Roberto (as i always do) -- in
>VI, we made a lot of progress in a face-to-face
>session facilitated by an amateur (me). i take
>the blame for losing a whole lot of ground in a
>face-to-face meeting later in the week where we
>were all tired and shouldn't have been
>meeting. better-planned sessions, held outside
>of the stressful week of an ICANN meeting,
>planned and led by somebody who knew what they
>were doing, might have captured a consensus.
>
>-- i think using Board ultimatums is probably
>not the best way to motivate WGs, especially if
>those rules of engagement are fluid. neither
>the STI nor the GNSO re-org were working-groups,
>so i didn't participate and don't have a direct
>comment. but i've participated in a bunch of
>working groups and none of them have benefited
>by being tinkered with by the Board. the latest
>example is the cross-AC/SO DNS Security and
>Stability Analysis working group. Olivier can fill you in on the gory details.
>
>-- one of the pieces that was never completed in
>the new GNSO PDP was a self-assessment cycle for
>WGs as they are wrapping up. the Standing
>Committee on Improvements is near the end of
>developing that instrument and is planning to
>test it very soon. i think the results of those
>questionnaires will be a big help to other WG
>chairs, and the questions we ask will also give
>chairs a big hint on what they should (and
>shouldn't) be doing. here's a link to the draft
>-- it's likely to change a bit once we've run it through a test cycle:
>
>
><http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/>http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/
>
>
>On Aug 8, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Alan Greenberg
><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>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
>
>
>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
>From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>
>To: '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>, "'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>
>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 12:42:10 +0200
>
>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'; rickert(a)anwaelte.de;
>mike(a)haven2.com; 'Chuck Gomes';
>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
>
>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
>From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>
>To: 'Mike O'Connor' <mike(a)haven2.com>, 'Alan Greenberg'
> <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>
>CC: 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'
> <michele(a)blacknight.com>, <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, '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>, '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 11:45:49 +0200
>
>Adding to what Mikey has already said, I think
>that what was bad was not that the Board set a
>deadline, but that this deadline came abruptly.
>I recall that we had a lot of time spent
>(wasted, IMHO) trying to second guess what the
>Board would have done in terms of setting a time
>limit, what the default decision of the Board
>would be in case we do not get a consensus, and
>other things that were not directly aiming at reaching a consensus position.
>I believe that the path should be clear and
>known in advance. The Board has all the rights
>to set a (reasonable) deadline in advance, it
>helps the planning of the WG. Of course, the
>deadline can be extended if needed and if
>reasonably motivated (that happened for VI as
>well). What is disruptive is the statement: OK
>guys, we have enough, you have one more week and thats it.
>Another element that is creating problems is
>that it is not clear what happens in case of
>failure to reach consensus. As Alan (if I am not
>mistaken) points out, there are different
>schools of thought on the Board on whether the
>Board will have to make a decision, or whether
>the ball should be punted to GNSO for another round.
>Personally, I favour the former. The ball can go
>back to GNSO Council only if there is legitimate
>and motivated reason to believe that the PDP was
>done badly and that another WG, maybe with a
>different charter, can address the matter
>differently and have more chances to solve the
>issue in a satisfactory way (incidentally, it
>should not be the Board to decide this, but the
>Name Council). But if it is to have another run
>with the same people about the same issue, it
>will be a loss of time. Not only, it will give
>the temptation to the Name Council to solve the
>matter with a vote, absent a PDP, which will be
>a very bad case. If there is no consensus, the
>only authority that can make a decision is the Board.
>I am aware that this will raise some issues:
>some folks, when they see that the PDP is going
>in a direction that does not suits their wishes,
>could decide to stall the PDP and lobby the
>Board instead. This is a risk that we must be
>able to take. Lobbying the Board has always
>happened and will always happen, but in time we
>will be able to grow in the consensus of the
>stakeholders cultural approach to minimize this
>risk. After all, the very reason for ICANN to
>exist is the multi-stakeholder model, and the
>consensus of the stakeholders as legitimation
>for the decisions, so we do not have other
>choice than to go ahead on this path.
>In summary:
>- clear timeframe set in advance, extendable if
>motivated need exists (i.e.: we are getting there, we just need more time)
>- if closure with no consensus ball back to Name Council to evaluate results
>- if no reason to believe that another run will
>solve the issues, ball to the Board who has the final decision.
>Cheers,
>Roberto
>
>
>
>Da: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com]
>Inviato: venerdì 9 agosto 2013 01:51
>A: Alan Greenberg
>Cc: Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele
>Neylon - Blacknight'; rickert(a)anwaelte.de;
>'Chuck Gomes'; jbladel(a)godaddy.com; 'Paul Diaz';
>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria'; 'Marika
>Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
>Oggetto: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>
>i'm sorry to hear that my VI Senior co-chair
>Roberto won't be able to make the call. is
>there any way to add some options so that he can attend?
>
>several points to amplify about "complicated" WGs:
>
>-- in my view it would be helpful if they were
>chartered with that "complicated" aspect in mind
>(i.e. more resources, healthy dose of senior
>participants, aggressive recruiting,
>facilitation/mediation options available,
>etc.). we may want to think about the upcoming
>Policy and Implementation Working Group in that light.
>
>-- i agree with Roberto (as i always do) -- in
>VI, we made a lot of progress in a face-to-face
>session facilitated by an amateur (me). i take
>the blame for losing a whole lot of ground in a
>face-to-face meeting later in the week where we
>were all tired and shouldn't have been
>meeting. better-planned sessions, held outside
>of the stressful week of an ICANN meeting,
>planned and led by somebody who knew what they
>were doing, might have captured a consensus.
>
>-- i think using Board ultimatums is probably
>not the best way to motivate WGs, especially if
>those rules of engagement are fluid. neither
>the STI nor the GNSO re-org were working-groups,
>so i didn't participate and don't have a direct
>comment. but i've participated in a bunch of
>working groups and none of them have benefited
>by being tinkered with by the Board. the latest
>example is the cross-AC/SO DNS Security and
>Stability Analysis working group. Olivier can fill you in on the gory details.
>
>-- one of the pieces that was never completed in
>the new GNSO PDP was a self-assessment cycle for
>WGs as they are wrapping up. the Standing
>Committee on Improvements is near the end of
>developing that instrument and is planning to
>test it very soon. i think the results of those
>questionnaires will be a big help to other WG
>chairs, and the questions we ask will also give
>chairs a big hint on what they should (and
>shouldn't) be doing. here's a link to the draft
>-- it's likely to change a bit once we've run it through a test cycle:
>
>
><http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/>http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/
>
>
>On Aug 8, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Alan Greenberg
><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>
>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
>
>
>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
>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com>
>Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 14:14:14 -0500
>CC: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, 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(a)anwaelte.de>,
> "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>, '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: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>
>
>i REALLY strongly agree with Chuck's idea.
>
>
>On Aug 9, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Gomes, Chuck"
><<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote:
>
>>Regarding the issue of Board ultimatums, I have
>>felt for some time that most of the Board
>>members and some senior staff do not have a
>>very good appreciation for the working group
>>process. Moreover, I dont think it there is
>>an effective way to get a reasonable
>>appreciation if you havent participated in
>>one. So I wonder whether we should suggest
>>that all Board members and executive staff
>>should participate in at least one WG. I
>>understand that they have a heavy workload and
>>I respect that but even if they were to
>>participate on the WG list and attend at least
>>25% of the meetings every two months, I think
>>they would be in a lot better position to make decisions regarding PDP results.
>>
>>Chuck
>>
>>From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 7:51 PM
>>To: Alan Greenberg
>>Cc: Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele
>>Neylon - Blacknight';
>><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de;
>> Gomes, Chuck;
>><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com;
>> 'Paul
>>Diaz';<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz;
>>'Avri Doria'; 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B.
>>Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
>>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>>
>>i'm sorry to hear that my VI Senior co-chair
>>Roberto won't be able to make the call. is
>>there any way to add some options so that he can attend?
>>
>>several points to amplify about "complicated" WGs:
>>
>>-- in my view it would be helpful if they were
>>chartered with that "complicated" aspect in
>>mind (i.e. more resources, healthy dose of
>>senior participants, aggressive recruiting,
>>facilitation/mediation options available,
>>etc.). we may want to think about the upcoming
>>Policy and Implementation Working Group in that light.
>>
>>-- i agree with Roberto (as i always do) -- in
>>VI, we made a lot of progress in a face-to-face
>>session facilitated by an amateur (me). i take
>>the blame for losing a whole lot of ground in a
>>face-to-face meeting later in the week where we
>>were all tired and shouldn't have been
>>meeting. better-planned sessions, held outside
>>of the stressful week of an ICANN meeting,
>>planned and led by somebody who knew what they
>>were doing, might have captured a consensus.
>>
>>-- i think using Board ultimatums is probably
>>not the best way to motivate WGs, especially if
>>those rules of engagement are fluid. neither
>>the STI nor the GNSO re-org were
>>working-groups, so i didn't participate and
>>don't have a direct comment. but i've
>>participated in a bunch of working groups and
>>none of them have benefited by being tinkered
>>with by the Board. the latest example is the
>>cross-AC/SO DNS Security and Stability Analysis
>>working group. Olivier can fill you in on the gory details.
>>
>>-- one of the pieces that was never completed
>>in the new GNSO PDP was a self-assessment cycle
>>for WGs as they are wrapping up. the Standing
>>Committee on Improvements is near the end of
>>developing that instrument and is planning to
>>test it very soon. i think the results of those
>>questionnaires will be a big help to other WG
>>chairs, and the questions we ask will also give
>>chairs a big hint on what they should (and
>>shouldn't) be doing. here's a link to the
>>draft -- it's likely to change a bit once we've run it through a test cycle:
>>
>>
>><http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/>http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/
>>
>>
>>On Aug 8, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Alan Greenberg
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>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
>From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>
>To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, "Neuman, Jeff"
> <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com>
>CC: 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(a)anwaelte.de>,
> "jbladel(a)godaddy.com" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz
> <pdiaz(a)pir.org>,
> "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
>Thread-Topic: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>Thread-Index: AQHOlJIgqByHHTK3PUiZf6SpGRAu65mMWsaAgAAdgoCAAIMUIIAACqKsgAAIAgA=
>Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 16:15:39 +0000
>Accept-Language: en-US
>
>Like I said. It's a good question to discuss, especially if want
>people to be motivated to participate. I don't have any magic answers.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca]
>Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 11:41 AM
>To: Gomes, Chuck; Neuman, Jeff; Mike O'Connor
>Cc: Roberto Gaetano; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon - Blacknight;
>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; jbladel(a)godaddy.com; Paul Diaz; Avri Doria;
>Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute
>Subject: RE: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>
>Chuck, for an issue that is within the scope of the GNSO, the
>threshold is 1/3 or each house or 2/3 of one house. That ensures
>that one or both contracted parties (who may be impacted by the PDP
>results) cannot veto it. It would be interesting to hear
>alternatives that still preserve the no-veto concept.
>
>That notwithstanding, Marika, have we ever put together a chart of
>what the voting records really were to initiate PDPs over the last
>several years?
>
>Alan
>
>At 09/08/2013 11:10 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >Regardless of differing personal opinions regarding the PEDNR PDP,
> >Jeff raises an important question as to whether the threshold for
> >initiating a PDP is too low. I understand the complications in
> >answering that question, but it is definitely a valid one to ask.
> >
> >Chuck
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca]
> >Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 11:19 PM
> >To: Neuman, Jeff; Mike O'Connor
> >Cc: Roberto Gaetano; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon - Blacknight;
> >rickert(a)anwaelte.de; Gomes, Chuck; jbladel(a)godaddy.com; Paul Diaz; Avri
> >Doria; Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute
> >Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
> >
> >At 08/08/2013 09:33 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> > >All,
> > >
> > >Some good discussions are taking place here and I wish I had the time
> > >to devote to the lengthy emails. I just noticed the discussion board
> > >ultimatums and although there have been some positive views expressed
> > >on them, I believe that they have failed to produce anything even
> > >remotely useful in policy development. In fact, they have had a much
> > >worse effect than letting things play out in a working group. The VI
> > >ultimatums actually in my view caused what was heading towards a
> > >workable compromise to fall flat on its face and prevent that
> > >emerging consensus from coming through. Worse yet, the Board
> > >resolution, which was ultimately implemented, and will be in practice
> > >soon, will demonstrate how bad of a job the top down decision
> > >actually was (in my view). But that is a whole separate story
> > >
> > > I will be happy to explain on the call exactly what happened as the
> > > chair of the ATRT remembers quite well (sorry Brian).
> >
> >And this Vice Chair as well!
> >
> > >Also Alan with PEDNR although you remember what happened during the
> > >PDP, what has not come out of this discussion was the fact that none
> > >of the contracted parties felt the issue merited a PDP in the first place.
> > >But with the incredibly small thresholds to start a PDP, the PDP began.
> > >Perhaps one could argue that the PDP should never have started in the
> > >first place (an argument for higher thresholds). You can't force a
> > >multi stakeholder process to work when many of the stakeholder have
> > >no incentive or desire to address an issue. So, it was not surprising
> > >at all when the PDP dragged on and took forever to get just a small
> > >outcome, and that the parties were not incented to come to a
> > >compromise.
> >
> >I do remember that well. But that just raises the question - how do you
> >address a picket fence issue when the contracted party/parties is/are
> >happy with the status quo? But for the record, perhaps due to
> >interesting politics, the vote to initiate the PDP was unanimous
> >excluding two absentee ballots that were not returned.
> >
> >
> > >I have many other thoughts, but again a lack of time to document, so
> > >I welcome the calls to discuss the issues. And by the way, I continue
> > >to believe that the PDP process is not broken. And I also believe
> > >that the VI process, or for that matter, and policy process related
> > >to the new gTLDs are not the ones we should use to judge the PDP.
> > >Finally, we cannot forget that the formal PDP is not and should not
> > >be the only way for policy development in the GNSO.
> >
> >I for one do not use the term "broken". The question that I think we
> >need to focus on is how to make the process work for the really thorny
> >issues. And I agree with your intro. I think this is a really good
> >discussion and some interesting ideas are coming out of it.
> >
> >Alan
> >
> >
> > >Thanks.
1
0
>From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>
>To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, "Gomes, Chuck"
> <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, "Neuman, Jeff"
> <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, Mike O'Connor
> <mike(a)haven2.com>
>CC: 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(a)anwaelte.de>,
> "jbladel(a)godaddy.com" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz
> <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, Avri
> Doria <avri(a)ella.com>, "Larisa B. Gurnick"
> <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, Charla
> Shambley <charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute(a)pir.org>
>Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 08:59:02 -0700
>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>
>No, as far as I am aware we have never put together a chart of voting
>records, but the information on the votes casts is contained in the
>minutes of the respective Council meeting and could be easily traced if
>necessary.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Marika
>
>On 09/08/13 17:41, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> >Chuck, for an issue that is within the scope of the GNSO, the
> >threshold is 1/3 or each house or 2/3 of one house. That ensures that
> >one or both contracted parties (who may be impacted by the PDP
> >results) cannot veto it. It would be interesting to hear alternatives
> >that still preserve the no-veto concept.
> >
> >That notwithstanding, Marika, have we ever put together a chart of
> >what the voting records really were to initiate PDPs over the last
> >several years?
> >
> >Alan
> >
> >At 09/08/2013 11:10 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >>Regardless of differing personal opinions regarding the PEDNR PDP,
> >>Jeff raises an important question as to whether the threshold for
> >>initiating a PDP is too low. I understand the complications in
> >>answering that question, but it is definitely a valid one to ask.
> >>
> >>Chuck
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca]
> >>Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 11:19 PM
> >>To: Neuman, Jeff; Mike O'Connor
> >>Cc: Roberto Gaetano; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon - Blacknight;
> >>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; Gomes, Chuck; jbladel(a)godaddy.com; Paul Diaz;
> >>Avri Doria; Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian
> >>Cute
> >>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
> >>
> >>At 08/08/2013 09:33 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> >> >All,
> >> >
> >> >Some good discussions are taking place here and I wish I had the time
> >> >to devote to the lengthy emails. I just noticed the discussion board
> >> >ultimatums and although there have been some positive views expressed
> >> >on them, I believe that they have failed to produce anything even
> >> >remotely useful in policy development. In fact, they have had a much
> >> >worse effect than letting things play out in a working group. The VI
> >> >ultimatums actually in my view caused what was heading towards a
> >> >workable compromise to fall flat on its face and prevent that emerging
> >> >consensus from coming through. Worse yet, the Board resolution, which
> >> >was ultimately implemented, and will be in practice soon, will
> >> >demonstrate how bad of a job the top down decision actually was (in my
> >> >view). But that is a whole separate story
> >> >
> >> > I will be happy to explain on the call exactly what happened as the
> >> > chair of the ATRT remembers quite well (sorry Brian).
> >>
> >>And this Vice Chair as well!
> >>
> >> >Also Alan with PEDNR although you remember what happened during the
> >> >PDP, what has not come out of this discussion was the fact that none of
> >> >the contracted parties felt the issue merited a PDP in the first place.
> >> >But with the incredibly small thresholds to start a PDP, the PDP began.
> >> >Perhaps one could argue that the PDP should never have started in the
> >> >first place (an argument for higher thresholds). You can't force a
> >> >multi stakeholder process to work when many of the stakeholder have no
> >> >incentive or desire to address an issue. So, it was not surprising at
> >> >all when the PDP dragged on and took forever to get just a small
> >> >outcome, and that the parties were not incented to come to a
> >> >compromise.
> >>
> >>I do remember that well. But that just raises the question - how do
> >>you address a picket fence issue when the contracted party/parties
> >>is/are happy with the status quo? But for the record, perhaps due to
> >>interesting politics, the vote to initiate the PDP was unanimous
> >>excluding two absentee ballots that were not returned.
> >>
> >>
> >> >I have many other thoughts, but again a lack of time to document, so I
> >> >welcome the calls to discuss the issues. And by the way, I continue to
> >> >believe that the PDP process is not broken. And I also believe that
> >> >the VI process, or for that matter, and policy process related to the
> >> >new gTLDs are not the ones we should use to judge the PDP. Finally, we
> >> >cannot forget that the formal PDP is not and should not be the only way
> >> >for policy development in the GNSO.
> >>
> >>I for one do not use the term "broken". The question that I think we
> >>need to focus on is how to make the process work for the really
> >>thorny issues. And I agree with your intro. I think this is a really
> >>good discussion and some interesting ideas are coming out of it.
> >>
> >>Alan
> >>
> >>
> >> >Thanks.
> >
1
0
>From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>
>To: 'Alan Greenberg' <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, "Gomes, Chuck"
> <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com>
>CC: 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(a)anwaelte.de>,
> "jbladel(a)godaddy.com" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz
> <pdiaz(a)pir.org>,
> "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
>Thread-Topic: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>Thread-Index: AQHOlJIjWjS0qj0k+EWGpSOx5GhqaJmMF7hzgABgj4CAAMa+AP//xzJfgAAANGA=
>Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 15:50:31 +0000
>Accept-Language: en-US
>
>Alan,
>
>Although putting a chart together is interesting, I would encourage
>us to not fall back on that. Many SGs have voted in favor of PDPs
>because they knew that the vote would pass the threshold regardless
>of how they voted and they did not want to look bad dissenting
>knowing that the PDP would be initiated anyway.
>
>I can tell you first hand that the RySG in at least 2 PDPs in the
>last 2 years voted in favor of certain PDPs because they knew it
>would pass because of the low thresholds and politically they did
>not want to look bad or be ostracized.
>
>In my opinion, there is a problem with that kind of system.
>
>
>
>Jeffrey J. Neuman
>Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca]
>Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 11:41 AM
>To: Gomes, Chuck; Neuman, Jeff; Mike O'Connor
>Cc: Roberto Gaetano; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon - Blacknight;
>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; jbladel(a)godaddy.com; Paul Diaz; Avri Doria;
>Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute
>Subject: RE: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>
>Chuck, for an issue that is within the scope of the GNSO, the
>threshold is 1/3 or each house or 2/3 of one house. That ensures
>that one or both contracted parties (who may be impacted by the PDP
>results) cannot veto it. It would be interesting to hear
>alternatives that still preserve the no-veto concept.
>
>That notwithstanding, Marika, have we ever put together a chart of
>what the voting records really were to initiate PDPs over the last
>several years?
>
>Alan
>
>At 09/08/2013 11:10 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >Regardless of differing personal opinions regarding the PEDNR PDP,
> >Jeff raises an important question as to whether the threshold for
> >initiating a PDP is too low. I understand the complications in
> >answering that question, but it is definitely a valid one to ask.
> >
> >Chuck
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca]
> >Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 11:19 PM
> >To: Neuman, Jeff; Mike O'Connor
> >Cc: Roberto Gaetano; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon - Blacknight;
> >rickert(a)anwaelte.de; Gomes, Chuck; jbladel(a)godaddy.com; Paul Diaz; Avri
> >Doria; Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute
> >Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
> >
> >At 08/08/2013 09:33 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> > >All,
> > >
> > >Some good discussions are taking place here and I wish I had the time
> > >to devote to the lengthy emails. I just noticed the discussion board
> > >ultimatums and although there have been some positive views expressed
> > >on them, I believe that they have failed to produce anything even
> > >remotely useful in policy development. In fact, they have had a much
> > >worse effect than letting things play out in a working group. The VI
> > >ultimatums actually in my view caused what was heading towards a
> > >workable compromise to fall flat on its face and prevent that
> > >emerging consensus from coming through. Worse yet, the Board
> > >resolution, which was ultimately implemented, and will be in practice
> > >soon, will demonstrate how bad of a job the top down decision
> > >actually was (in my view). But that is a whole separate story
> > >
> > > I will be happy to explain on the call exactly what happened as the
> > > chair of the ATRT remembers quite well (sorry Brian).
> >
> >And this Vice Chair as well!
> >
> > >Also Alan with PEDNR although you remember what happened during the
> > >PDP, what has not come out of this discussion was the fact that none
> > >of the contracted parties felt the issue merited a PDP in the first place.
> > >But with the incredibly small thresholds to start a PDP, the PDP began.
> > >Perhaps one could argue that the PDP should never have started in the
> > >first place (an argument for higher thresholds). You can't force a
> > >multi stakeholder process to work when many of the stakeholder have
> > >no incentive or desire to address an issue. So, it was not surprising
> > >at all when the PDP dragged on and took forever to get just a small
> > >outcome, and that the parties were not incented to come to a
> > >compromise.
> >
> >I do remember that well. But that just raises the question - how do you
> >address a picket fence issue when the contracted party/parties is/are
> >happy with the status quo? But for the record, perhaps due to
> >interesting politics, the vote to initiate the PDP was unanimous
> >excluding two absentee ballots that were not returned.
> >
> >
> > >I have many other thoughts, but again a lack of time to document, so
> > >I welcome the calls to discuss the issues. And by the way, I continue
> > >to believe that the PDP process is not broken. And I also believe
> > >that the VI process, or for that matter, and policy process related
> > >to the new gTLDs are not the ones we should use to judge the PDP.
> > >Finally, we cannot forget that the formal PDP is not and should not
> > >be the only way for policy development in the GNSO.
> >
> >I for one do not use the term "broken". The question that I think we
> >need to focus on is how to make the process work for the really thorny
> >issues. And I agree with your intro. I think this is a really good
> >discussion and some interesting ideas are coming out of it.
> >
> >Alan
> >
> >
> > >Thanks.
1
0
>From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>
>To: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>
>CC: 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(a)anwaelte.de>,
> "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>, '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
>Thread-Topic: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>Thread-Index: AQHOlJIgqByHHTK3PUiZf6SpGRAu65mM/0mQ
>Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 15:42:24 +0000
>Accept-Language: en-US
>
>Regarding the issue of Board ultimatums, I have
>felt for some time that most of the Board
>members and some senior staff do not have a very
>good appreciation for the working group
>process. Moreover, I dont think it there is an
>effective way to get a reasonable appreciation
>if you havent participated in one. So I wonder
>whether we should suggest that all Board members
>and executive staff should participate in at
>least one WG. I understand that they have a
>heavy workload and I respect that but even if
>they were to participate on the WG list and
>attend at least 25% of the meetings every two
>months, I think they would be in a lot better
>position to make decisions regarding PDP results.
>
>Chuck
>
>From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com]
>Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 7:51 PM
>To: Alan Greenberg
>Cc: Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele
>Neylon - Blacknight'; rickert(a)anwaelte.de;
>Gomes, Chuck; jbladel(a)godaddy.com; 'Paul Diaz';
>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria'; 'Marika
>Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>
>i'm sorry to hear that my VI Senior co-chair
>Roberto won't be able to make the call. is
>there any way to add some options so that he can attend?
>
>several points to amplify about "complicated" WGs:
>
>-- in my view it would be helpful if they were
>chartered with that "complicated" aspect in mind
>(i.e. more resources, healthy dose of senior
>participants, aggressive recruiting,
>facilitation/mediation options available,
>etc.). we may want to think about the upcoming
>Policy and Implementation Working Group in that light.
>
>-- i agree with Roberto (as i always do) -- in
>VI, we made a lot of progress in a face-to-face
>session facilitated by an amateur (me). i take
>the blame for losing a whole lot of ground in a
>face-to-face meeting later in the week where we
>were all tired and shouldn't have been
>meeting. better-planned sessions, held outside
>of the stressful week of an ICANN meeting,
>planned and led by somebody who knew what they
>were doing, might have captured a consensus.
>
>-- i think using Board ultimatums is probably
>not the best way to motivate WGs, especially if
>those rules of engagement are fluid. neither
>the STI nor the GNSO re-org were working-groups,
>so i didn't participate and don't have a direct
>comment. but i've participated in a bunch of
>working groups and none of them have benefited
>by being tinkered with by the Board. the latest
>example is the cross-AC/SO DNS Security and
>Stability Analysis working group. Olivier can fill you in on the gory details.
>
>-- one of the pieces that was never completed in
>the new GNSO PDP was a self-assessment cycle for
>WGs as they are wrapping up. the Standing
>Committee on Improvements is near the end of
>developing that instrument and is planning to
>test it very soon. i think the results of those
>questionnaires will be a big help to other WG
>chairs, and the questions we ask will also give
>chairs a big hint on what they should (and
>shouldn't) be doing. here's a link to the draft
>-- it's likely to change a bit once we've run it through a test cycle:
>
>
><http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/>http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/
>
>
>On Aug 8, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Alan Greenberg
><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>
>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
>
>
>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