- atrt2 - lists.icann.org

Recommendation finances
by Lise Fuhr Aug. 12, 2013

Aug. 12, 2013

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

1 0

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

Aug. 12, 2013

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

1 1

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

Aug. 10, 2013

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

1 0

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

Aug. 10, 2013

No message. Seq No omitted by mistake.

1 0

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

Aug. 10, 2013

>From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, 'Alan Greenberg' > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, > "'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'" <michele(a)blacknight.com>, > "rickert(a)anwaelte.de" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, "mike(a)haven2.com" > <mike(a)haven2.com>, > "jbladel(a)godaddy.com" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, 'Paul Diaz' > <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, > "jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz" <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, 'Avri > Doria' <avri(a)ella.com> >CC: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "'Larisa B. Gurnick'" > <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, 'Charla > Shambley' <charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, > 'Brian Cute' <bcute(a)pir.org> >Subject: RE: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Thread-Topic: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Thread-Index: Ac6TbpCxEv+qsjhaT6u4cVGKV6uMpQBNpv0AAAIPNAAASphvAAABMvyg >Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:11:40 +0000 >Accept-Language: en-US > >Regarding F2F meetings, it is helpful to recall >that there were several F2F meetings held in the >New gTLD PDP that I believe were very >productive. In especially complicated PDPs, I >think that F2F meetings can be quite helpful but >I dont think that it is as necessary in less difficult PDPs. > >Chuck > >From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] >Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 6:42 AM >To: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele >Neylon - Blacknight'; rickert(a)anwaelte.de; >mike(a)haven2.com; Gomes, Chuck; >jbladel(a)godaddy.com; 'Paul Diaz'; jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria' >Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute' >Subject: R: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 > >I realize now that I did not answer the last question: >Without a threat hanging over heads, can the >process work? Even as Roberto suggests, with F2F >meeting and professional facilitation. >I do not have the perfect answer, but I can say a couple of things. >As I commented before, the ultimate decision has >to come from the Board, and if the WG does not >come to a conclusion within the (clearly set in >advance, not decided abruptly) time frame, the >Board has free hands in the decision. The threat >is, in this case, that it is not known in >advance what the Board would decide. This means >that it would be ethically incorrect for >Directors to speak with third parties about >matters on which a PDP is ongoing, to avoid trumping the PDP itself. >The second point is a bit more complicated. >Having been the co-chair of VI-WG I might be >biased, but I strongly believe that it was not a >lost cause to come to a more meaningful >consensus than the one we have reached. The >strategy that Mikey and myself had, once it was >clear that we were starting running in circles >without much progress, was on one hand to >surprise the WG by trying to propose views of >the problem from a different angle (some >remember attempts that were funny, but serious, >like the atoms-molecules) and on the other hand >logging the minimum common consensus, i.e. what >we could present in a report as a step forward, >although minimal. I hoped that, once >participants could get out from a paradigm, some >progress could be achieved, and on the other >hand that, if minimum result was achieved, that >we could think of a second run to try to get a >refinement. ICANN has used professional >facilitators in several occasions during >meetings, so it should not be a problem to have this kind of support. >I do remember the energy and the participation >when we met F2F. There is also another element >that has to be taken into account (and I speak >from my experience of former Chair of the >DNSO-GA): when people are meeting in person, >they do not have the reactions that produce, for >instance, inflammatory emails: there are less >chances to be misunderstood, the body language >helps completing the information flow, people >that are normally shy can say a few words in >small groups bringing new ideas, Yes, I >strongly believe that with more F2F and >professional facilitation we would have had substantial progress. >Cheers, >R. > > > >Da: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] >Inviato: venerdì 9 agosto 2013 01:06 >A: Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele >Neylon - Blacknight'; ><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; ><mailto:mike@haven2.com>mike(a)haven2.com; 'Chuck >Gomes'; ><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com; >'Paul Diaz'; ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria' >Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute' >Oggetto: Re: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 > >Roberto, and Mikey and others, > >A question. > >On an issue such as VI, where both emotions and >investments are heavy, what is the incentive for >participants to make concessions and try to find some middle ground. > >Although it didn't work, perhaps as Mikey >identified due to timing and changing >time-lines, in the past the incentive has been a >Board ultimatum that a compromise be found by a >certain date or else, with or else being that >the Board will decide and you may not like what >they do. It worked with the STI, and also with >the GNSO re-org (although perhaps with a questionable outcome in that case). > >Some Board members have been prepared to do that >as they eventually did with VI, but others have >said that the only such decisions that the Board >should make should be do-no-harm interim >decisions and punt back to the GNSO as it has >done with the IDO/INGO protection. > >Without a threat hanging over heads, can the >process work? Even as Roberto suggests, with F2F >meeting and professional facilitation. > >Alan > >At 08/08/2013 06:07 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote: >Sorry, I will be unable to make the 14 August >call, I will be available only in the late >evening (CET) that is not one of the option offered. >However, I would like to contribute to the >discussion prior to the call. I have no problem >in having my comments posted publicly. >I will articulate a better contribution >tomorrow, but for the time being I would like to make the following points: >· Agree with Mikey on incentivating more participation by new people >· The charter has to be defined clearly, >but not only it has to be very clear what will >be the process after the conclusion of the WG >(in the VI-WG we spent hours to discuss what >will happen next if we dont reach consensus >Ill elaborate in a follow up post on why this is important >· On complicated WGs, resources are >necessary, still quoting the VI experience, much >progress has been made in a F2F meeting >· As part of the GNSO Review, we stated >that some resources should be made available for >the WG Chairs this is important when the WG is >complicated I am sure that in the final >report of the GNSO Review WG we mentioned >training for the Chairpersons, use of facilitators, and so on >· To the best of my knowledge, there are >lessons learned sessions, but there has never >been an effort to share experiences among WG >Chairs or record for the upcoming WGs what went >OK and what went wrong in previous WGs, >successful tricks used, approaches that brought >deadlocks, a.s.o. much is left to the oral >tradition and to the memory of the WG members >· For the certain stakeholders have not >been able to adequately participate issue, I >have my own opinions, it is also linked with the >chair warming issue since this comment is >going to be public, I will wait until my mind is >fresh and I will be able to articulate my thoughts in a politically correct way >Please be aware that I have not been active in >the PDP process for more than one year, and >therefore I might have raised points that are >currently incorrect or superseded by events. >Best regards, >Roberto > > > >Da: Alice Jansen [ mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org] >Inviato: mercoledì 7 agosto 2013 15:04 >A: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; ><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; ><mailto:mike@haven2.com>mike(a)haven2.com; Chuck >Gomes; ><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com; >Paul Diaz; ><mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com; ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; >Avri Doria; Alan Greenberg >Cc: Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute >Oggetto: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Priorità: Alta > > >Dear All, > >It is my understanding that my colleague Charla >has been touched with you to schedule a call >with the Second Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2). > > The ATRT2's activities are focused on > paragraph 9.1 of the AoC where ICANN commits to > maintain and improve robust mechanisms for > public input, accountability, and transparency > so as to ensure that the outcomes of its > decision-making will reflect the public > interest and be accountable to all > stakeholders. As part of its mandate, the ATRT > has decided to review the effectiveness of > ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization > (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP) and so > determine whether the current GNSO PDP process > satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder > model and Internet users. Given your experience > and expertise, the ATRT2 is interested in > hearing your thoughts and wishes you to share > your unique perspective with them. > >The ATRT2 has a face-to-face meeting scheduled >for next week (141516 August) in Los Angeles. >Would you be available - tentatively on >Wednesday, 14 August - to join their session >remotely? Please confirm your availability via ><http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh >by Thursday, 8 August COB. > >The Review Team has received your request for >preparatory materials. Rest assured that we will >provide you with more information as soon as available. > >I look forward to reading your doodle poll >entries and thank you for your help. Please let >me know if you have any questions or concerns. > >Thanks > >Very best regards > >Alice > >---- >Alice Jansen >Strategic Initiatives Manager >ICANN >Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1 >B-1040 Brussels, Belgium >Office: +32 289 474 03 >Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 >Skype: alice_jansen_icann >Email: <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org

1 0

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

Aug. 10, 2013

>From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> >To: 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' > <michele(a)blacknight.com>, > <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, <mike(a)haven2.com>, "'Chuck > Gomes'" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, 'Paul Diaz' > <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, > <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, 'Avri Doria' <avri(a)ella.com>, > 'Alan Greenberg' <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >CC: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "'Larisa B. Gurnick'" > <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, 'Charla > Shambley' <charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, > 'Brian Cute' <bcute(a)pir.org> >Subject: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 16:12:59 +0200 >Thread-Index: AQIHQzpoViB7WhzGdQkLWv+WPUgapQHgC1jsmQ4KK8A= > >After the previous discussion, I need to elaborate only on these points: >· Agree with Mikey on incentivating more participation by new people >· To the best of my knowledge, there are >lessons learned sessions, but there has never >been an effort to share experiences among WG >Chairs or record for the upcoming WGs what went >OK and what went wrong in previous WGs, >successful tricks used, approaches that brought >deadlocks, a.s.o. much is left to the oral >tradition and to the memory of the WG members >· For the certain stakeholders have not >been able to adequately participate issue, I >have my own opinions, it is also linked with the >chair warming issue since this comment is >going to be public, I will wait until my mind is >fresh and I will be able to articulate my thoughts in a politically correct way > >The first and last points are connected, so let >me start with the easy one, the lessons learned. >As far as I know, but I might be wrong, while a >post mortem session is generally held at the end >of a WG, there is little coordination among WGs, >except for the synthesis made in the Name Council. >It might be useful to have cross-WG sessions, >like a meeting of the WG Chairs, past, present, >and candidate future, to share experiences and >tricks. This can be done as an ad-hoc session >every ICANN meeting, for instance. If the >suggestion of a facilitator is accepted, the >facilitator(s) should participate to the >session, to understand what are the main issues >and problems that are encountered in running >WGs. Of course, the sessions shall be open, so >that we can be transparent about the issues and >also take the benefit of contributions by the audience. >Maybe we could try to assess the PDP taking a >frame of reference, like for instance the >Capability Maturity Model (CMM or CMMI) and >check which are the process areas that need more >attention. Incidentally, CMMI certification for >the policy development process could be an excellent marketing tool. > >About participation, I agree with Mikey that we >should incentivate new people. However, maybe we >should first analyse the composition of the WGs >and check whether there are any stakeholder >groups (in the broad sense) that are >insufficiently represented (or insufficiently >active, if we take the point about the chair >warming issue). While it is always good to have >a new generation of participants, before >studying incentives to ensure participation of >new people we should check whether we have >chronic absence of some voices, and rectify this problem first. >I would like also to be clear about the chair >warming: I am not at all in favour of people >volounteering just to add a line on the CV or, >worse, to get a free ticket to some meeting. >However, there are situations in which we need >to accept people in an observer role, i.e. >people who will listen but might not contribute >much. Not everybody has the same approach. Not >everybody is ready to jump into an overheated >arena to express an opinion that might be heavily criticized. >Last but not least, every participant to a WG >representing a component of the ICANN >multi-stakeholder world carries the >responsibility of representing this component. >And his/her behavior will naturally contribute >to the opinion that the other folks will have >about that component. So, I assume that the part >of the ICANN organization, either a >constituency, a stakeholder group, an advisory >committee, or other, will be somewhat (although >indirectly) responsible of the behavior of that >individual, and I assume will take a corrective action. > >Cheers, >Roberto > > > >Da: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] >Inviato: venerdì 9 agosto 2013 00:07 >A: 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon - >Blacknight'; 'rickert(a)anwaelte.de'; >'mike(a)haven2.com'; 'Chuck Gomes'; >'jbladel(a)godaddy.com'; 'Paul Diaz'; >'jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Alan Greenberg' >Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute' >Oggetto: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 > >Sorry, I will be unable to make the 14 August >call, I will be available only in the late >evening (CET) that is not one of the option offered. >However, I would like to contribute to the >discussion prior to the call. I have no problem >in having my comments posted publicly. >I will articulate a better contribution >tomorrow, but for the time being I would like to make the following points: >· Agree with Mikey on incentivating more participation by new people >· The charter has to be defined clearly, >but not only it has to be very clear what will >be the process after the conclusion of the WG >(in the VI-WG we spent hours to discuss what >will happen next if we dont reach consensus >Ill elaborate in a follow up post on why this is important >· On complicated WGs, resources are >necessary, still quoting the VI experience, much >progress has been made in a F2F meeting >· As part of the GNSO Review, we stated >that some resources should be made available for >the WG Chairs this is important when the WG is >complicated I am sure that in the final >report of the GNSO Review WG we mentioned >training for the Chairpersons, use of facilitators, and so on >· To the best of my knowledge, there are >lessons learned sessions, but there has never >been an effort to share experiences among WG >Chairs or record for the upcoming WGs what went >OK and what went wrong in previous WGs, >successful tricks used, approaches that brought >deadlocks, a.s.o. much is left to the oral >tradition and to the memory of the WG members >· For the certain stakeholders have not >been able to adequately participate issue, I >have my own opinions, it is also linked with the >chair warming issue since this comment is >going to be public, I will wait until my mind is >fresh and I will be able to articulate my thoughts in a politically correct way >Please be aware that I have not been active in >the PDP process for more than one year, and >therefore I might have raised points that are >currently incorrect or superseded by events. >Best regards, >Roberto > > > >Da: Alice Jansen >[<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org] >Inviato: mercoledì 7 agosto 2013 15:04 >A: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; ><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; ><mailto:mike@haven2.com>mike(a)haven2.com; Chuck >Gomes; ><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com; >Paul Diaz; ><mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com; ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; >Avri Doria; Alan Greenberg >Cc: Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute >Oggetto: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Priorità: Alta > > >Dear All, > >It is my understanding that my colleague Charla >has been touched with you to schedule a call >with the Second Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2). > > The ATRT2's activities are focused on > paragraph 9.1 of the AoC where ICANN commits to > maintain and improve robust mechanisms for > public input, accountability, and transparency > so as to ensure that the outcomes of its > decision-making will reflect the public > interest and be accountable to all > stakeholders. As part of its mandate, the ATRT > has decided to review the effectiveness of > ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization > (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP) and so > determine whether the current GNSO PDP process > satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder > model and Internet users. Given your experience > and expertise, the ATRT2 is interested in > hearing your thoughts and wishes you to share > your unique perspective with them. > >The ATRT2 has a face-to-face meeting scheduled >for next week (141516 August) in Los Angeles. >Would you be available - tentatively on >Wednesday, 14 August - to join their session >remotely? Please confirm your availability via ><http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh >by Thursday, 8 August COB. > >The Review Team has received your request for >preparatory materials. Rest assured that we will >provide you with more information as soon as available. > >I look forward to reading your doodle poll >entries and thank you for your help. Please let >me know if you have any questions or concerns. > >Thanks > >Very best regards > >Alice > >---- >Alice Jansen >Strategic Initiatives Manager >ICANN >Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1 >B-1040 Brussels, Belgium >Office: +32 289 474 03 >Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 >Skype: alice_jansen_icann >Email: <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org

1 0

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

Aug. 10, 2013

>From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> >To: "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, 'Alan Greenberg' > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, > "'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'" <michele(a)blacknight.com>, > <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, > <mike(a)haven2.com>, <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, 'Paul Diaz' > <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, > <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, 'Avri Doria' <avri(a)ella.com> >CC: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "'Larisa B. Gurnick'" > <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, 'Charla > Shambley' <charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, > 'Brian Cute' <bcute(a)pir.org> >Subject: R: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 16:14:04 +0200 > >Agree. >R. > > >Da: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] >Inviato: sabato 10 agosto 2013 16:12 >A: Roberto Gaetano; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Alice >Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'; >rickert(a)anwaelte.de; mike(a)haven2.com; >jbladel(a)godaddy.com; 'Paul Diaz'; jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria' >Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute' >Oggetto: RE: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 > >Regarding F2F meetings, it is helpful to recall >that there were several F2F meetings held in the >New gTLD PDP that I believe were very >productive. In especially complicated PDPs, I >think that F2F meetings can be quite helpful but >I dont think that it is as necessary in less difficult PDPs. > >Chuck > >From: Roberto Gaetano >[<mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] >Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 6:42 AM >To: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele >Neylon - Blacknight'; ><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; ><mailto:mike@haven2.com>mike(a)haven2.com; Gomes, >Chuck; ><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com; >'Paul Diaz'; ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria' >Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute' >Subject: R: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 > >I realize now that I did not answer the last question: >Without a threat hanging over heads, can the >process work? Even as Roberto suggests, with F2F >meeting and professional facilitation. >I do not have the perfect answer, but I can say a couple of things. >As I commented before, the ultimate decision has >to come from the Board, and if the WG does not >come to a conclusion within the (clearly set in >advance, not decided abruptly) time frame, the >Board has free hands in the decision. The threat >is, in this case, that it is not known in >advance what the Board would decide. This means >that it would be ethically incorrect for >Directors to speak with third parties about >matters on which a PDP is ongoing, to avoid trumping the PDP itself. >The second point is a bit more complicated. >Having been the co-chair of VI-WG I might be >biased, but I strongly believe that it was not a >lost cause to come to a more meaningful >consensus than the one we have reached. The >strategy that Mikey and myself had, once it was >clear that we were starting running in circles >without much progress, was on one hand to >surprise the WG by trying to propose views of >the problem from a different angle (some >remember attempts that were funny, but serious, >like the atoms-molecules) and on the other hand >logging the minimum common consensus, i.e. what >we could present in a report as a step forward, >although minimal. I hoped that, once >participants could get out from a paradigm, some >progress could be achieved, and on the other >hand that, if minimum result was achieved, that >we could think of a second run to try to get a >refinement. ICANN has used professional >facilitators in several occasions during >meetings, so it should not be a problem to have this kind of support. >I do remember the energy and the participation >when we met F2F. There is also another element >that has to be taken into account (and I speak >from my experience of former Chair of the >DNSO-GA): when people are meeting in person, >they do not have the reactions that produce, for >instance, inflammatory emails: there are less >chances to be misunderstood, the body language >helps completing the information flow, people >that are normally shy can say a few words in >small groups bringing new ideas, Yes, I >strongly believe that with more F2F and >professional facilitation we would have had substantial progress. >Cheers, >R. > > > >Da: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] >Inviato: venerdì 9 agosto 2013 01:06 >A: Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele >Neylon - Blacknight'; ><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; ><mailto:mike@haven2.com>mike(a)haven2.com; 'Chuck >Gomes'; ><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com; >'Paul Diaz'; ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria' >Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute' >Oggetto: Re: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 > >Roberto, and Mikey and others, > >A question. > >On an issue such as VI, where both emotions and >investments are heavy, what is the incentive for >participants to make concessions and try to find some middle ground. > >Although it didn't work, perhaps as Mikey >identified due to timing and changing >time-lines, in the past the incentive has been a >Board ultimatum that a compromise be found by a >certain date or else, with or else being that >the Board will decide and you may not like what >they do. It worked with the STI, and also with >the GNSO re-org (although perhaps with a questionable outcome in that case). > >Some Board members have been prepared to do that >as they eventually did with VI, but others have >said that the only such decisions that the Board >should make should be do-no-harm interim >decisions and punt back to the GNSO as it has >done with the IDO/INGO protection. > >Without a threat hanging over heads, can the >process work? Even as Roberto suggests, with F2F >meeting and professional facilitation. > >Alan > >At 08/08/2013 06:07 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote: >Sorry, I will be unable to make the 14 August >call, I will be available only in the late >evening (CET) that is not one of the option offered. >However, I would like to contribute to the >discussion prior to the call. I have no problem >in having my comments posted publicly. >I will articulate a better contribution >tomorrow, but for the time being I would like to make the following points: >· Agree with Mikey on incentivating more participation by new people >· The charter has to be defined clearly, >but not only it has to be very clear what will >be the process after the conclusion of the WG >(in the VI-WG we spent hours to discuss what >will happen next if we dont reach consensus >Ill elaborate in a follow up post on why this is important >· On complicated WGs, resources are >necessary, still quoting the VI experience, much >progress has been made in a F2F meeting >· As part of the GNSO Review, we stated >that some resources should be made available for >the WG Chairs this is important when the WG is >complicated I am sure that in the final >report of the GNSO Review WG we mentioned >training for the Chairpersons, use of facilitators, and so on >· To the best of my knowledge, there are >lessons learned sessions, but there has never >been an effort to share experiences among WG >Chairs or record for the upcoming WGs what went >OK and what went wrong in previous WGs, >successful tricks used, approaches that brought >deadlocks, a.s.o. much is left to the oral >tradition and to the memory of the WG members >· For the certain stakeholders have not >been able to adequately participate issue, I >have my own opinions, it is also linked with the >chair warming issue since this comment is >going to be public, I will wait until my mind is >fresh and I will be able to articulate my thoughts in a politically correct way >Please be aware that I have not been active in >the PDP process for more than one year, and >therefore I might have raised points that are >currently incorrect or superseded by events. >Best regards, >Roberto > > > >Da: Alice Jansen [ mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org] >Inviato: mercoledì 7 agosto 2013 15:04 >A: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; ><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; ><mailto:mike@haven2.com>mike(a)haven2.com; Chuck >Gomes; ><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com; >Paul Diaz; ><mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com; ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; >Avri Doria; Alan Greenberg >Cc: Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute >Oggetto: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Priorità: Alta > > >Dear All, > >It is my understanding that my colleague Charla >has been touched with you to schedule a call >with the Second Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2). > > The ATRT2's activities are focused on > paragraph 9.1 of the AoC where ICANN commits to > maintain and improve robust mechanisms for > public input, accountability, and transparency > so as to ensure that the outcomes of its > decision-making will reflect the public > interest and be accountable to all > stakeholders. As part of its mandate, the ATRT > has decided to review the effectiveness of > ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization > (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP) and so > determine whether the current GNSO PDP process > satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder > model and Internet users. Given your experience > and expertise, the ATRT2 is interested in > hearing your thoughts and wishes you to share > your unique perspective with them. > >The ATRT2 has a face-to-face meeting scheduled >for next week (141516 August) in Los Angeles. >Would you be available - tentatively on >Wednesday, 14 August - to join their session >remotely? Please confirm your availability via ><http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh >by Thursday, 8 August COB. > >The Review Team has received your request for >preparatory materials. Rest assured that we will >provide you with more information as soon as available. > >I look forward to reading your doodle poll >entries and thank you for your help. Please let >me know if you have any questions or concerns. > >Thanks > >Very best regards > >Alice > >---- >Alice Jansen >Strategic Initiatives Manager >ICANN >Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1 >B-1040 Brussels, Belgium >Office: +32 289 474 03 >Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 >Skype: alice_jansen_icann >Email: <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org

1 0

Re: [atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 25
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

>From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> >To: 'Mike O'Connor' <mike(a)haven2.com>, "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes(a)verisign.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>, <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 16:19:19 +0200 > > >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'; >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 > >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

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

Aug. 10, 2013

>From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> >To: 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' > <michele(a)blacknight.com>, > <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, <mike(a)haven2.com>, "'Chuck > Gomes'" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, 'Paul Diaz' > <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, > <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, 'Avri Doria' <avri(a)ella.com>, > 'Alan Greenberg' <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >CC: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "'Larisa B. Gurnick'" > <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, 'Charla > Shambley' <charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, > 'Brian Cute' <bcute(a)pir.org> >Subject: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 00:07:18 +0200 > >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; >rickert(a)anwaelte.de; mike(a)haven2.com; Chuck >Gomes; jbladel(a)godaddy.com; Paul Diaz; >roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com; >jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; Avri Doria; Alan Greenberg >Cc: Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute >Oggetto: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Priorità: Alta > > >Dear All, > >It is my understanding that my colleague Charla >has been touched with you to schedule a call >with the Second Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2). > > The ATRT2's activities are focused on > paragraph 9.1 of the AoC where ICANN commits to > maintain and improve robust mechanisms for > public input, accountability, and transparency > so as to ensure that the outcomes of its > decision-making will reflect the public > interest and be accountable to all > stakeholders. As part of its mandate, the ATRT > has decided to review the effectiveness of > ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization > (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP) and so > determine whether the current GNSO PDP process > satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder > model and Internet users. Given your experience > and expertise, the ATRT2 is interested in > hearing your thoughts and wishes you to share > your unique perspective with them. > >The ATRT2 has a face-to-face meeting scheduled >for next week (141516 August) in Los Angeles. >Would you be available - tentatively on >Wednesday, 14 August - to join their session >remotely? Please confirm your availability via ><http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh >by Thursday, 8 August COB. > >The Review Team has received your request for >preparatory materials. Rest assured that we will >provide you with more information as soon as available. > >I look forward to reading your doodle poll >entries and thank you for your help. Please let >me know if you have any questions or concerns. > >Thanks > >Very best regards > >Alice > >---- >Alice Jansen >Strategic Initiatives Manager >ICANN >Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1 >B-1040 Brussels, Belgium >Office: +32 289 474 03 >Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 >Skype: alice_jansen_icann >Email: <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org

1 0

Re: [atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 29
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

>From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >To: 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>, > "mike(a)haven2.com" <mike(a)haven2.com>, "jbladel(a)godaddy.com" > <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, 'Paul Diaz' > <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, "jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz" > <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, 'Avri Doria' > <avri(a)ella.com>, 'Alan Greenberg' > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >CC: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "'Larisa B. Gurnick'" > <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, 'Charla > Shambley' <charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, > 'Brian Cute' <bcute(a)pir.org> >Subject: RE: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Thread-Topic: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Thread-Index: Ac6TbpCxEv+qsjhaT6u4cVGKV6uMpQHgC1jsmQ4KK8CZGDwecA== >Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:30:30 +0000 >Accept-Language: en-US > >Excellent contributions again Roberto. > >On a side note, the email conversation many of >us have been having is an excellent example of >how the multi-stakeholder model can work online, >especially for those who are comfortable using >email. I believe the upcoming 1-hour session >with the ATRT2 will be helpful but there is no >way we could get anywhere near as much discussed >in that session compared to what has happened online the last week or so. > >Chuck > >From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] >Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 10:13 AM >To: 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon - >Blacknight'; rickert(a)anwaelte.de; >mike(a)haven2.com; Gomes, Chuck; >jbladel(a)godaddy.com; 'Paul Diaz'; >jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria'; 'Alan Greenberg' >Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute' >Subject: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 > >After the previous discussion, I need to elaborate only on these points: >· Agree with Mikey on incentivating more participation by new people >· To the best of my knowledge, there are >lessons learned sessions, but there has never >been an effort to share experiences among WG >Chairs or record for the upcoming WGs what went >OK and what went wrong in previous WGs, >successful tricks used, approaches that brought >deadlocks, a.s.o. much is left to the oral >tradition and to the memory of the WG members >· For the certain stakeholders have not >been able to adequately participate issue, I >have my own opinions, it is also linked with the >chair warming issue since this comment is >going to be public, I will wait until my mind is >fresh and I will be able to articulate my thoughts in a politically correct way > >The first and last points are connected, so let >me start with the easy one, the lessons learned. >As far as I know, but I might be wrong, while a >post mortem session is generally held at the end >of a WG, there is little coordination among WGs, >except for the synthesis made in the Name Council. >It might be useful to have cross-WG sessions, >like a meeting of the WG Chairs, past, present, >and candidate future, to share experiences and >tricks. This can be done as an ad-hoc session >every ICANN meeting, for instance. If the >suggestion of a facilitator is accepted, the >facilitator(s) should participate to the >session, to understand what are the main issues >and problems that are encountered in running >WGs. Of course, the sessions shall be open, so >that we can be transparent about the issues and >also take the benefit of contributions by the audience. >Maybe we could try to assess the PDP taking a >frame of reference, like for instance the >Capability Maturity Model (CMM or CMMI) and >check which are the process areas that need more >attention. Incidentally, CMMI certification for >the policy development process could be an excellent marketing tool. > >About participation, I agree with Mikey that we >should incentivate new people. However, maybe we >should first analyse the composition of the WGs >and check whether there are any stakeholder >groups (in the broad sense) that are >insufficiently represented (or insufficiently >active, if we take the point about the chair >warming issue). While it is always good to have >a new generation of participants, before >studying incentives to ensure participation of >new people we should check whether we have >chronic absence of some voices, and rectify this problem first. >I would like also to be clear about the chair >warming: I am not at all in favour of people >volounteering just to add a line on the CV or, >worse, to get a free ticket to some meeting. >However, there are situations in which we need >to accept people in an observer role, i.e. >people who will listen but might not contribute >much. Not everybody has the same approach. Not >everybody is ready to jump into an overheated >arena to express an opinion that might be heavily criticized. >Last but not least, every participant to a WG >representing a component of the ICANN >multi-stakeholder world carries the >responsibility of representing this component. >And his/her behavior will naturally contribute >to the opinion that the other folks will have >about that component. So, I assume that the part >of the ICANN organization, either a >constituency, a stakeholder group, an advisory >committee, or other, will be somewhat (although >indirectly) responsible of the behavior of that >individual, and I assume will take a corrective action. > >Cheers, >Roberto > > > >Da: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] >Inviato: venerdì 9 agosto 2013 00:07 >A: 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon - >Blacknight'; 'rickert(a)anwaelte.de'; >'mike(a)haven2.com'; 'Chuck Gomes'; >'jbladel(a)godaddy.com'; 'Paul Diaz'; >'jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Alan Greenberg' >Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute' >Oggetto: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 > >Sorry, I will be unable to make the 14 August >call, I will be available only in the late >evening (CET) that is not one of the option offered. >However, I would like to contribute to the >discussion prior to the call. I have no problem >in having my comments posted publicly. >I will articulate a better contribution >tomorrow, but for the time being I would like to make the following points: >· Agree with Mikey on incentivating more participation by new people >· The charter has to be defined clearly, >but not only it has to be very clear what will >be the process after the conclusion of the WG >(in the VI-WG we spent hours to discuss what >will happen next if we dont reach consensus >Ill elaborate in a follow up post on why this is important >· On complicated WGs, resources are >necessary, still quoting the VI experience, much >progress has been made in a F2F meeting >· As part of the GNSO Review, we stated >that some resources should be made available for >the WG Chairs this is important when the WG is >complicated I am sure that in the final >report of the GNSO Review WG we mentioned >training for the Chairpersons, use of facilitators, and so on >· To the best of my knowledge, there are >lessons learned sessions, but there has never >been an effort to share experiences among WG >Chairs or record for the upcoming WGs what went >OK and what went wrong in previous WGs, >successful tricks used, approaches that brought >deadlocks, a.s.o. much is left to the oral >tradition and to the memory of the WG members >· For the certain stakeholders have not >been able to adequately participate issue, I >have my own opinions, it is also linked with the >chair warming issue since this comment is >going to be public, I will wait until my mind is >fresh and I will be able to articulate my thoughts in a politically correct way >Please be aware that I have not been active in >the PDP process for more than one year, and >therefore I might have raised points that are >currently incorrect or superseded by events. >Best regards, >Roberto > > > >Da: Alice Jansen >[<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org] >Inviato: mercoledì 7 agosto 2013 15:04 >A: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; ><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; ><mailto:mike@haven2.com>mike(a)haven2.com; Chuck >Gomes; ><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com; >Paul Diaz; ><mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com; ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; >Avri Doria; Alan Greenberg >Cc: Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute >Oggetto: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Priorità: Alta > > >Dear All, > >It is my understanding that my colleague Charla >has been touched with you to schedule a call >with the Second Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2). > > The ATRT2's activities are focused on > paragraph 9.1 of the AoC where ICANN commits to > maintain and improve robust mechanisms for > public input, accountability, and transparency > so as to ensure that the outcomes of its > decision-making will reflect the public > interest and be accountable to all > stakeholders. As part of its mandate, the ATRT > has decided to review the effectiveness of > ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization > (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP) and so > determine whether the current GNSO PDP process > satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder > model and Internet users. Given your experience > and expertise, the ATRT2 is interested in > hearing your thoughts and wishes you to share > your unique perspective with them. > >The ATRT2 has a face-to-face meeting scheduled >for next week (141516 August) in Los Angeles. >Would you be available - tentatively on >Wednesday, 14 August - to join their session >remotely? Please confirm your availability via ><http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh >by Thursday, 8 August COB. > >The Review Team has received your request for >preparatory materials. Rest assured that we will >provide you with more information as soon as available. > >I look forward to reading your doodle poll >entries and thank you for your help. Please let >me know if you have any questions or concerns. > >Thanks > >Very best regards > >Alice > >---- >Alice Jansen >Strategic Initiatives Manager >ICANN >Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1 >B-1040 Brussels, Belgium >Office: +32 289 474 03 >Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 >Skype: alice_jansen_icann >Email: <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org

1 0