- atrt2 - lists.icann.org

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

Aug. 10, 2013

>Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 11:39:12 -0400 >To: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Cc: Michele Neylon - Blacknight ><michele(a)blacknight.com>, "rickert(a)anwaelte.de" ><rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, Chuck Gomes ><cgomes(a)verisign.com>, "jbladel(a)godaddy.com" ><jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz ><pdiaz(a)pir.org>, "roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com" ><roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, >"jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz" ><jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, Avri Doria ><avri(a)ella.com>, Marika Konings ><marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "Larisa B. Gurnick" ><larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, Charla Shambley ><charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute(a)pir.org> > >We'll follow up with something that is more than >just my opinion, but here goes with some of my thoughts. > >1. There is little question that the current PDP >can work well (ie all sides represented in the >process and sound balanced policy as an outcome) >in some instances. I think the current IRTP PDPs >and Lock are fine illustrations. All parties >working in good faith to find a common ground. > >2. Vertical Integration is one of the PDPs that >attracts the most attention. Some people think >that a deadlock is a reasonable outcome, given >that it highlights the issues and punts to the >Board to make the decision. Other feel the Board >should never need to make such a decision, and >at best (and I am paraphrasing one Board member >during the Durban ATRT-Board interaction) the >Board should take an interim do-no-harm decision >and then push back to the GNSO. > >3. You know I will raise PEDNR as another >example. It took far too long to produce >relatively little. I personally think that it >was a very poor use of time and did not meet the >original goals and is a good example of the >inability to attract sufficient non-contracted >parties to a PDP unless it is very emotionally charged. > >4. If we were to (heaven forbid) re-do the new >gTLD policy using the current rules, would be >any better at getting something that is not >mired in the controversy of the current process. > >The bottom line is that ICANN has a number of >responsibilities but setting policy for the gTLD >space is the one that it spends the most time on >and is essentially a make-or-break function for >the organization. Can we rely on the GNSO PDP to >make sound policy representing the balanced >needs of all stakeholders, both present and not >present, and in the public interest? > >Alan > >At 07/08/2013 09:45 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote: >>hi all, >> >>could somebody unpack this a little >>bit? "whether the current GNSO PDP process >>satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder >>model and Internet users" is a pretty broad >>topic (to put it mildly). presuming that this >>is going to be a 1-hour call, 90 minutes at >>most, i would find it helpful if the ATRT2 >>could come up with 3-4 questions you would like >>us to think about and build an agenda from there. >> >>thanks, >> >>mikey >> >> >>On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Alice Jansen >><<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >>>Dear All, >>>It is my understanding that my colleague >>>Charla has been touched with you to schedule a >>>call with the Second Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2). >>> The ATRT2's activities are focused on >>> paragraph 9.1 of the AoC where ICANN commits >>> to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for >>> public input, accountability, and >>> transparency so as to ensure that the >>> outcomes of its decision-making will reflect >>> the public interest and be accountable to all >>> stakeholders. As part of its mandate, the >>> ATRT has decided to review the effectiveness >>> of ICANN Generic Names Supporting >>> Organization (GNSO) Policy Development >>> Process (PDP) and so determine whether the >>> current GNSO PDP process satisfies the needs >>> of the multi stakeholder model and Internet >>> users. Given your experience and expertise, >>> the ATRT2 is interested in hearing your >>> thoughts and wishes you to share your unique perspective with them. >>>The ATRT2 has a face-to-face meeting scheduled >>>for next week (141516 August) in Los >>>Angeles. Would you be available - tentatively >>>on Wednesday, 14 August - to join their >>>session remotely? Please confirm your >>>availability via >>><http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh >>>by Thursday, 8 August COB. >>>The Review Team has received your request for >>>preparatory materials. Rest assured that we >>>will provide you with more information as soon as available. >>>I look forward to reading your doodle poll >>>entries and thank you for your help. Please >>>let me know if you have any questions or concerns. >>>Thanks >>>Very best regards >>>Alice >>>---- >>>Alice Jansen >>>Strategic Initiatives Manager >>>ICANN >>>Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1 >>>B-1040 Brussels, Belgium >>>Office: +32 289 474 03 >>>Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 >>>Skype: alice_jansen_icann >>>Email: <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org >> >> >>PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: >><http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >>OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

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

Aug. 10, 2013

>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> >Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 08:45:41 -0500 >CC: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com>, > "rickert(a)anwaelte.de" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, Chuck Gomes > <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, > "jbladel(a)godaddy.com" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz > <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, > "roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com" <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, > "jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz" <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, Avri Doria > <avri(a)ella.com>, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, Marika Konings > <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "Larisa B. > Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, > Charla Shambley > <charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute(a)pir.org> >To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org> >Importance: high > >hi all, > >could somebody unpack this a little >bit? "whether the current GNSO PDP process >satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder >model and Internet users" is a pretty broad >topic (to put it mildly). presuming that this >is going to be a 1-hour call, 90 minutes at >most, i would find it helpful if the ATRT2 could >come up with 3-4 questions you would like us to >think about and build an agenda from there. > >thanks, > >mikey > > >On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Alice Jansen ><<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org> wrote: > >>Dear All, >>It is my understanding that my colleague Charla >>has been touched with you to schedule a call >>with the Second Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2). >> The ATRT2's activities are focused on >> paragraph 9.1 of the AoC where ICANN commits >> to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for >> public input, accountability, and transparency >> so as to ensure that the outcomes of its >> decision-making will reflect the public >> interest and be accountable to all >> stakeholders. As part of its mandate, the ATRT >> has decided to review the effectiveness of >> ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization >> (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP) and so >> determine whether the current GNSO PDP process >> satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder >> model and Internet users. Given your >> experience and expertise, the ATRT2 is >> interested in hearing your thoughts and wishes >> you to share your unique perspective with them. >>The ATRT2 has a face-to-face meeting scheduled >>for next week (141516 August) in Los Angeles. >>Would you be available - tentatively on >>Wednesday, 14 August - to join their session >>remotely? Please confirm your availability via >><http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh >>by Thursday, 8 August COB. >>The Review Team has received your request for >>preparatory materials. Rest assured that we >>will provide you with more information as soon as available. >>I look forward to reading your doodle poll >>entries and thank you for your help. Please let >>me know if you have any questions or concerns. >>Thanks >>Very best regards >>Alice >>---- >>Alice Jansen >>Strategic Initiatives Manager >>ICANN >>Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1 >>B-1040 Brussels, Belgium >>Office: +32 289 474 03 >>Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 >>Skype: alice_jansen_icann >>Email: <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org > > >PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: ><http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Discussion on PDP
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

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

1 0

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

Aug. 9, 2013

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

1 0

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

Aug. 9, 2013

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

2 1

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

Aug. 9, 2013

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

1 0

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

Aug. 9, 2013

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

1 0

Templates for Assessment of Implementation and For New Recommendations
by Larisa B. Gurnick Aug. 9, 2013

Aug. 9, 2013

Dear Review Team Members, A new wiki page has been created to organize Templates for Assessment of Implementation and For New Recommendations. Here is the link to this page - https://community.icann.org/display/ATRT2/Templates+for+Assessment+of+Imple… Please note that the completed templates for assigned issues are due by 9 August. Issue Review Team Member Assignment GAC participation in policy processes (WS1.b) Lawrence Strickling Publication of yearly statistical reports on transparency (whistle blower) (WS4) Avri Doria Cross-constituency work Alan Greenberg, Avri Doria Reconsideration (WS1.a) Carlos Gutierrez Public comment process (WS1.c) Brian Cute PDP (WS1.e) Alan Greenberg Communications for the Board (WS1.a) David Conrad Communications for the GAC (WS1.b) Stephen Conroy Review process (WS4) Brian Cute, David Conrad Multilingual Quality (WS4) Lise Fuhr, Fiona Asonga The blank template can be found at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/41899319/ATRT2+templates+-… Samples/drafts of templates are also available on the wiki page. As discussed during your last call, the templates should also be used for assessing the implementation of prior review teams' recommendations. While no due date has been established, organizing your analysis into this format in preparation for sessions in Los Angeles would be useful. Best regards, Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995

3 2

Template - Recommendations on Review Process
by Brian Cute Aug. 8, 2013

Aug. 8, 2013

Fiona, David and Michael, Attached is a first draft of a template for potential recommendations on the Review Process. It is not complete but it incorporates some relevant facts, observation and background. Please feel free to edit/add to it so it can provide a good basis for discussion in Los Angeles. Thank you. Brian

1 0

Fwd: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 7, 2013

Aug. 7, 2013

Any comment on to what extent other ATRT members feel I am on-target, or off-base would be welcome. Alan >Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 11:39:12 -0400 >To: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Cc: Michele Neylon - Blacknight ><michele(a)blacknight.com>, "rickert(a)anwaelte.de" ><rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, Chuck Gomes ><cgomes(a)verisign.com>, "jbladel(a)godaddy.com" ><jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz ><pdiaz(a)pir.org>, "roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com" ><roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, >"jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz" ><jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, Avri Doria ><avri(a)ella.com>, Marika Konings ><marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "Larisa B. Gurnick" ><larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, Charla Shambley ><charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute(a)pir.org> > >We'll follow up with something that is more than >just my opinion, but here goes with some of my thoughts. > >1. There is little question that the current PDP >can work well (ie all sides represented in the >process and sound balanced policy as an outcome) >in some instances. I think the current IRTP PDPs >and Lock are fine illustrations. All parties >working in good faith to find a common ground. > >2. Vertical Integration is one of the PDPs that >attracts the most attention. Some people think >that a deadlock is a reasonable outcome, given >that it highlights the issues and punts to the >Board to make the decision. Other feel the Board >should never need to make such a decision, and >at best (and I am paraphrasing one Board member >during the Durban ATRT-Board interaction) the >Board should take an interim do-no-harm decision >and then push back to the GNSO. > >3. You know I will raise PEDNR as another >example. It took far too long to produce >relatively little. I personally think that it >was a very poor use of time and did not meet the >original goals and is a good example of the >inability to attract sufficient non-contracted >parties to a PDP unless it is very emotionally charged. > >4. If we were to (heaven forbid) re-do the new >gTLD policy using the current rules, would be >any better at getting something that is not >mired in the controversy of the current process. > >The bottom line is that ICANN has a number of >responsibilities but setting policy for the gTLD >space is the one that it spends the most time on >and is essentially a make-or-break function for >the organization. Can we rely on the GNSO PDP to >make sound policy representing the balanced >needs of all stakeholders, both present and not >present, and in the public interest? > >Alan > >At 07/08/2013 09:45 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote: >>hi all, >> >>could somebody unpack this a little >>bit? "whether the current GNSO PDP process >>satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder >>model and Internet users" is a pretty broad >>topic (to put it mildly). presuming that this >>is going to be a 1-hour call, 90 minutes at >>most, i would find it helpful if the ATRT2 >>could come up with 3-4 questions you would like >>us to think about and build an agenda from there. >> >>thanks, >> >>mikey >> >> >>On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Alice Jansen >><<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >>>Dear All, >>>It is my understanding that my colleague >>>Charla has been touched with you to schedule a >>>call with the Second Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2). >>> The ATRT2's activities are focused on >>> paragraph 9.1 of the AoC where ICANN commits >>> to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for >>> public input, accountability, and >>> transparency so as to ensure that the >>> outcomes of its decision-making will reflect >>> the public interest and be accountable to all >>> stakeholders. As part of its mandate, the >>> ATRT has decided to review the effectiveness >>> of ICANN Generic Names Supporting >>> Organization (GNSO) Policy Development >>> Process (PDP) and so determine whether the >>> current GNSO PDP process satisfies the needs >>> of the multi stakeholder model and Internet >>> users. Given your experience and expertise, >>> the ATRT2 is interested in hearing your >>> thoughts and wishes you to share your unique perspective with them. >>>The ATRT2 has a face-to-face meeting scheduled >>>for next week (141516 August) in Los >>>Angeles. Would you be available - tentatively >>>on Wednesday, 14 August - to join their >>>session remotely? Please confirm your >>>availability via >>><http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh >>>by Thursday, 8 August COB. >>>The Review Team has received your request for >>>preparatory materials. Rest assured that we >>>will provide you with more information as soon as available. >>>I look forward to reading your doodle poll >>>entries and thank you for your help. Please >>>let me know if you have any questions or concerns. >>>Thanks >>>Very best regards >>>Alice >>>---- >>>Alice Jansen >>>Strategic Initiatives Manager >>>ICANN >>>Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1 >>>B-1040 Brussels, Belgium >>>Office: +32 289 474 03 >>>Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 >>>Skype: alice_jansen_icann >>>Email: <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org >> >> >>PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: >><http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >>OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0