- atrt2 - lists.icann.org

Re: [atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 14
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

>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 >Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 15:10:16 +0000 > >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

Re: [atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 13
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

>From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >To: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> >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>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, > "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+EWGpSOx5GhqaJmMF7hz >Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 01:33:21 +0000 >Accept-Language: en-US > >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). > >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 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. > >Thanks. > > >Sent from my iPad > >On Aug 8, 2013, at 7:51 PM, "Mike O'Connor" ><<mailto:mike@haven2.com>mike(a)haven2.com> wrote: > >>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.d >>>>e; <mailto:mike@haven2.com>mike(a)haven2.com; >>>>Chuck Gomes; >>>><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.co >>>>m; 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

Re: [atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 12
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> >Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 18:50:52 -0500 >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>, '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> >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > >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

Re: [atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 09
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> >Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:26:18 -0500 >CC: Brian Cute <brianacute(a)gmail.com>, "James M. Bladel" > <jbladel(a)godaddy.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>, "Paul > Diaz" <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, "roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com" > <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, "jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz" > <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com>, Marika Konings > <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "Larisa B. > Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, > Charla Shambley > <charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute(a)pir.org> >To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > >i'm with Chuck on this. i also assumed that >this was open and have no problem with my comments being posted publicly. > >m > >On Aug 8, 2013, at 11:19 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" ><<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: > >>Thanks for noting that Brian. What is the >>easiest way to forward the strings of messages >>to the ATRT2 that have been missed? I for one >>had assumed it included the ATRT2 but didnt >>check & I am fine for it to be open. >> >>Chuck >> >>From: Brian Cute [mailto:brianacute@gmail.com] >>Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 11:02 AM >>To: Gomes, Chuck >>Cc: James M. Bladel; Alan Greenberg; Mike >>O'Connor; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon - >>Blacknight; >><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; >> Paul >>Diaz;<mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com; >><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 >> >>Thank you to everyone for your thoughts and >>contributions. A point of order: I just >>checked and it does not appear that this >>conversation is taking place in the open - I >>didn't see the ATRT2 email address above which >>means this is a closed conversation (unless I >>missed it, in which case never mind). ATRT2 >>work is open as a default and this entire >>thread should be made available on that list -- >>and if this good conversation continues, should >>continue there. I don't know why it wasn't >>open. If any contributor has a reservation >>about their prior inputs being made public, we >>are obliged to do so. If you do, please note >>that and Staff can have your comments removed. >> >>My apologies for the oversight. >> >>Regards, >>Brian >> >> >>On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Gomes, Chuck >><<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: >>I confess to sitting back and simply >>appreciating all the good contributions that >>are being made on this. And I sincerely >>believe they are good and constructive. My >>compliments to all of you who have contributed. >> >>I decided I would jump in and hopefully be constructive as well. >> >>In the last couple months as we in the RySG, >>including the NTAG, have been grappling with >>finalizing details related to RPMs, TMCH, PDT & >>PIC DRP implementation details, Ive realized >>that we (RySG/NTAG) have worked within our own >>silo too long and that we could have been more >>effective and probably saved timed if we >>involved people from other silos sooner. Let >>me use the RPM issue as an example because a >>comment period has just been opened on >>that. In Durban we reached out to some >>representatives of the IPC and had what I >>thought was a very productive exchange >>regarding the RPM issues we were working >>on. Ideally, I think we should have done that >>sooner and I believe that that is a key >>opportunity for improvement in both policy and >>implementation efforts going forward. >> >>There is lots of criticism of silos and I get >>that but I dont think silos are bad. A silo >>is simply a group of common interests. We need >>those and it is helpful to have silos to >>formulate impacts to policy and implementation >>issues related to their particular >>interests. The problem is not silos but rather >>that we restrict ourselves to our silos too >>long. I am becoming convinced that we need to >>discover ways to work together across silos sooner in our processes. >> >>Many of you have heard me say that I dont >>think that changing processes or structure will >>help us much if we do not change behavior. In >>addition to all the ideas each of you have >>communicated, I think that we need to focus >>directly on how we can improve our >>collaboration across silos earlier. That would >>mean of course that each of us in our silos >>would need to accept the fact that >>collaboration is essential to the success of >>the multi-stakeholder model, but that is easier >>said than done. It is important for each silo >>to clearly communicate its positions and >>collectively for us to identify our >>differences, but then we need to come together >>and seek ways that we can compromise to come up >>with solutions that most can support even when >>they do not get everything they wanted. Is >>that doable? I dont know but I hope so. >> >>Chuck >> >>From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] >>Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:37 AM >>To: Alan Greenberg >>Cc: Mike O'Connor; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon >>- Blacknight; >><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; >> Gomes, Chuck; Paul Diaz; >><mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com;<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 >> >>Sorry for the delay, just getting up to speed >>on this thread. A few thoughts/reactions: >> >>- I agree with Mikey's overall point that we >>need to invest heavily in "onboarding" new >>participants. The veterans have to be >>answerable to their overlords, and the folks >>paying the bills want to see their >>representatives "move up" in the ICANN food >>chain, as it helps justify the continued costs >>(including opportunity) associated with >>participation in this beast. One of the ideas >>we kicked around in the RrSG is an informal >>mentor/protege program, where new blood can be >>assigned to assist a more experienced member for some introductory period.... >> >>- Also agree with Alan that the PDP works, >>when it is used properly. But when it comes to >>PDPs that have "failed," I would point out that >>in many case these involved ICANN over-reaching >>in to areas that are well beyond the technical >>coordination of the DNS. Whenever ICANN looks >>into the mirror and sees a new kind of >>competition authority, or WIPO, or a content >>regulator, or a consumer protection group, then >>you can always count on the resulting PDP to be messy and unsatisfactory. >> >>- And, frankly, there is a bit of a culture >>problem when it comes to the expected level of >>effort for PDP work. Some participants are, in >>my opinion, only interested in chair warming. >>They attend meetings and calls and speak up >>when it suits them, but to keep PDPs on an >>aggressive schedule folks will occasionally >>have to do some homework (gather data, write a >>draft, review slides/text, lead a >>subteam). Even on those rare occasions when we >>have sufficient participants, it's tough to get everyone pulling on the rope. >> >>Just my initial thoughts. I look forward to our call..... >> >>Thanks-- >> >>J. >> >>Sent from my iPad >> >> >>On Aug 7, 2013, at 23:04, "Alan Greenberg" >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >> >>A couple of more thought Mikey (and again, they are mine). >> >>When you are thinking about how to get more >>people involved (and up the very steep learning >>curve of what some of these issues are about - >>even the "simple" ones tend to have a lot of >>complex wrinkles), consider those who do not >>have any sponsor to pay their way and give them >>a bunch of meetings to start to feel at home. >>Of the people we get appointed to the ALAC, >>only a minority really take to ICANN and the >>policy process. And getting people involved who >>have never seen an ICANN meeting, or see one >>every N years, has not proven very successful. >> >>The undefined "public interest" is not going to >>go away. How do we make sure it is being addressed in PDPs? >> >>In my mind, the new PDP process is a good >>improvement, but most of the changes were >>actually in place (or we were moving there) >>before the new process was adopted. So I think >>the change you are seeing is a gradual >>improvement of the process used, and not really >>due to the new Bylaw words and such (not to >>minimize the importance of some things such as >>the preliminary Issue Report, but I don't think >>that is why we are doing better. It is not the >>IRTP or Locking PDPs that are the challenge. We >>understand how to do those. It is the difficult >>ones that we need to do better. It remains to >>be seen what is going to come out of the >>IGO/INGO PDP, and when we get to the next >>Whois/Directory Services one, things may get >>challenging again. And ones with large $ >>involved, with both sides present at the table, are going to be real hard. >> >>So I don't think the PDP is "broken". But how >>it is executed needs to be modified to meet the more challenging of situations. >> >>Alan >> >>At 07/08/2013 11:42 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote: >> >>hi Alan, >> >>a couple ideas come to mind from your list of questions. >> >>first, another Mikey Picture. this one >>highlights an idea that is emerging for me, but >>not quite fully-baked. i think one key piece >>that's missing from the current policy process >>is an orderly way to bring in New Blood. so >>our current crop of PDP participants is >>"graduating" to other tasks >>(constituency-leadership, >>new-jobs-with-applicants, expert >>working-groups, whatever) but we aren't filling >>in the gaps they leave with new people who are >>well-prepared to take up the slack. with that >>in mind, here's my Revision Zero picture of the >>on-ramp for new participants and the off-ramp >>for those of us who want to wind down a little >>bit. there are some things i don't like, but this is close enough for jazz. >> >><2e11bd8.jpg> >> >> >>it seems to me that we could see a lot of >>benefit from building a deeper pool of people >>in the "contribute" and "lead" layers of all >>AC/SOs if we paid more attention to the onramp >>for new folks (enter -> discover -> learn -> >>practice), and take better advantage of the >>old-timers by having offering corresponding >>tasks that they could help with as they wind >>down (recruit new people, guide them into the >>parts of ICANN that might interest them, help >>them learn the ropes, help them polish their >>early efforts, assist them as they contribute, >>and mentor the leadership layer). >> >>it also seems to me that there's a completely >>blurry continuum between the "outreach" effort >>and the "policy" effort that's being missed >>right now. my sense is that currently the >>outreach folks don't really know much about the >>policy side and thus aren't meeting with much >>success in bringing people on board in a way >>that they're ready to jump into >>policy-making. meanwhile, i think the policy >>side is being starved for resources (and not >>taking best advantage of the resources that are >>already here). some kind of blending of these >>two functions might be a way to beef up that >>pool of contributors and leaders. i think this >>could be cheap, and rewarding for everybody. >> >>note that this picture isn't just aimed at the >>GNSO. and to that point i think it would be >>helpful if we got better that >>cross-organizational stuff. again, i think >>we're under-utilizing our old-timers. getting >>better at the cross-organizational stuff could also be cheap/fun. >> >>second reaction, since i've been on all the WGs >>you mention Alan (and had a chair role in a >>couple). i think the WG process has gotten a >>LOT better as the GNSO has settled into the new >>PDP that came out of the last Review. the >>trouble is that these changes take time to take >>hold, and we're only now starting to see our >>first complete PDPs out of that new >>process. IRTP, Locking, Thick Whois are good >>examples of pretty-rapid, pretty-good >>efforts. i like those ones where the Council and Board votes are unanimous. >> >>big point: don't be too quick to "fix" the PDP >>just yet -- that's like overwatering a garden >>or over-pruning a bonsai tree. let the core >>process mature a little bit more. pay more >>attention to that which surrounds that core >>policy-making activity for now. plenty of room for improvement there. >> >>Vertical Integration was tough. a lot of you >>were on it. Roberto and i co-chaired it. i >>think that PDP is an exception that proves a >>few of the rules. here are the rules it proved for me: >> >>- charter PDPs carefully. ambiguities in the >>VI charter meant that we had a bit of a hill to >>climb before we could really even get under >>way. a lot of our energy was spent trying to >>out-guess the Board, and the Council's reaction >>to the Board's decisions. it felt to me like a >>double-blind poker game sometimes. i had a >>tough time chairing Fast Flux too -- again, the >>charter wasn't very good. i wrote a pretty >>detailed discussion about the FFlux charter >>which you can read here -- >><http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf>http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf >>(note: this was written in 2008, so while there >>are good ideas in there, some things have >>changed since then -- but there's lots of >>role/responsibility discussion that still applies today). >> >>- protect the schedule. i'm still convinced we >>could have arrived at consensus (or rough >>consensus) in VI, had we not been jerked around >>on our schedule the way we were. this is a >>lesson that generalizes nicely to the whole >>new-gTLD program (by the way,that PDP left a >>lot to be desired in terms of implementation >>detail, no?). i think we (all of us) have got >>a lot of lessons to learn about how the >>schedule of the new gTLD program was >>managed. expectations are all over the >>map. it remains, to this very day, a source of >>conflict. my view is that PDPs are especially >>vulnerable to schedule-pressure because it cuts >>off an important >>"let's-take-time-to-figure-this-out" premise >>that underlies consensus decision-making. a >>similar impact to the house-limit on the state of play in a casino. >> >>- keep the "layers" clear. i share the view >>that the bottom of the the bottom-up process >>ought to be where the rigorous discussions, >>leading to precise language, ought to take >>place. non-consensus ("representational") >>layers above (e.g. GNSO Council and Board) >>should either say "yes, good job" or "no, try >>again" but i don't think they are as well >>equipped to actually dive in and chew on the >>details. i think we tend to get into trouble >>when we deviate from that approach. final VI >>point -- the Board really surprised me when it >>gave us that really-short (2-week) deadline at >>the end of VI and then took the decision upon >>itself when we said we couldn't get done that >>fast. while i support the Board's decision, i'm not sure it's a real good one. >> >>see? all that stuff off my chest and now >>there's more oxygen available for our >>conference call. thanks for your points >>Alan. maybe some of the others want to a) add >>on to this thread or b) ask more questions? >> >>mikey >> >>On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >> >>We'll follow up with something that is more >>than just my opinion, but here goes with some of my thoughts. >> >>1. There is little question that the current >>PDP can work well (ie all sides represented in >>the process and sound balanced policy as an >>outcome) in some instances. I think the current >>IRTP PDPs and Lock are fine illustrations. All >>parties working in good faith to find a common ground. >> >>2. Vertical Integration is one of the PDPs that >>attracts the most attention. Some people think >>that a deadlock is a reasonable outcome, given >>that it highlights the issues and punts to the >>Board to make the decision. Other feel the >>Board should never need to make such a >>decision, and at best (and I am paraphrasing >>one Board member during the Durban ATRT-Board >>interaction) the Board should take an interim >>do-no-harm decision and then push back to the GNSO. >> >>3. You know I will raise PEDNR as another >>example. It took far too long to produce >>relatively little. I personally think that it >>was a very poor use of time and did not meet >>the original goals and is a good example of the >>inability to attract sufficient non-contracted >>parties to a PDP unless it is very emotionally charged. >> >>4. If we were to (heaven forbid) re-do the new >>gTLD policy using the current rules, would be >>any better at getting something that is not >>mired in the controversy of the current process. >> >>The bottom line is that ICANN has a number of >>responsibilities but setting policy for the >>gTLD space is the one that it spends the most >>time on and is essentially a make-or-break >>function for the organization. Can we rely on >>the GNSO PDP to make sound policy representing >>the balanced needs of all stakeholders, both >>present and not present, and in the public interest? >> >>Alan >> >>At 07/08/2013 09:45 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote: >> >>hi all, >> >>could somebody unpack this a little >>bit? "whether the current GNSO PDP process >>satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder >>model and Internet users" is a pretty broad >>topic (to put it mildly). presuming that this >>is going to be a 1-hour call, 90 minutes at >>most, i would find it helpful if the ATRT2 >>could come up with 3-4 questions you would like >>us to think about and build an agenda from there. >> >>thanks, >> >>mikey >> >> >>On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Alice Jansen >><<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org > wrote: >> >>Dear All, >>It is my understanding that my colleague Charla >>has been touched with you to schedule a call >>with the Second Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2). >> The ATRT2's activities are focused on >> paragraph 9.1 of the AoC where ICANN commits >> to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for >> public input, accountability, and transparency >> so as to ensure that the outcomes of its >> decision-making will reflect the public >> interest and be accountable to all >> stakeholders. As part of its mandate, the ATRT >> has decided to review the effectiveness of >> ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization >> (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP) and so >> determine whether the current GNSO PDP process >> satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder >> model and Internet users. Given your >> experience and expertise, the ATRT2 is >> interested in hearing your thoughts and wishes >> you to share your unique perspective with them. >>The ATRT2 has a face-to-face meeting scheduled >>for next week (141516 August) in Los Angeles. >>Would you be available - tentatively on >>Wednesday, 14 August - to join their session >>remotely? Please confirm your availability >>via<http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>http<http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>://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: <x-msg://1485/tel:%2B32%20289%20474%2003>+32 289 474 03 >>Mobile: <x-msg://1485/tel:%2B32%204%2073%2031%2076%2056>+32 4 73 31 76 56 >>Skype: alice_jansen_icann >>Email: <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org >> >> >>PHONE: >><x-msg://1485/tel:651-647-6109>651-647-6109, >>FAX: >><x-msg://1485/tel:866-280-2356>866-280-2356, >>WEB: <http://www.haven2.com/>www.haven2.com, >>HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >> >> >> >>PHONE: >><x-msg://1485/tel:651-647-6109>651-647-6109, >>FAX: >><x-msg://1485/tel:866-280-2356>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 08
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

>From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >To: Brian Cute <brianacute(a)gmail.com> >CC: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, Mike > O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com>, Alice Jansen > <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight > <michele(a)blacknight.com>, > "rickert(a)anwaelte.de" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, "Paul > Diaz" <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, "roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com" > <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, "jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz" > <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com>, Marika Konings > <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "Larisa B. > Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, > Charla Shambley > <charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute(a)pir.org> >Subject: RE: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 16:19:42 +0000 > >Thanks for noting that Brian. What is the >easiest way to forward the strings of messages >to the ATRT2 that have been missed? I for one >had assumed it included the ATRT2 but didnt >check & I am fine for it to be open. > >Chuck > >From: Brian Cute [mailto:brianacute@gmail.com] >Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 11:02 AM >To: Gomes, Chuck >Cc: James M. Bladel; Alan Greenberg; Mike >O'Connor; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon - >Blacknight; rickert(a)anwaelte.de; Paul Diaz; >roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com; >jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; Avri Doria; Marika >Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute >Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 > >Thank you to everyone for your thoughts and >contributions. A point of order: I just checked >and it does not appear that this conversation is >taking place in the open - I didn't see the >ATRT2 email address above which means this is a >closed conversation (unless I missed it, in >which case never mind). ATRT2 work is open as a >default and this entire thread should be made >available on that list -- and if this good >conversation continues, should continue >there. I don't know why it wasn't open. If any >contributor has a reservation about their prior >inputs being made public, we are obliged to do >so. If you do, please note that and Staff can have your comments removed. > >My apologies for the oversight. > >Regards, >Brian > >On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Gomes, Chuck ><<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: >I confess to sitting back and simply >appreciating all the good contributions that are >being made on this. And I sincerely believe >they are good and constructive. My compliments >to all of you who have contributed. > >I decided I would jump in and hopefully be constructive as well. > >In the last couple months as we in the RySG, >including the NTAG, have been grappling with >finalizing details related to RPMs, TMCH, PDT & >PIC DRP implementation details, Ive realized >that we (RySG/NTAG) have worked within our own >silo too long and that we could have been more >effective and probably saved timed if we >involved people from other silos sooner. Let me >use the RPM issue as an example because a >comment period has just been opened on that. In >Durban we reached out to some representatives of >the IPC and had what I thought was a very >productive exchange regarding the RPM issues we >were working on. Ideally, I think we should >have done that sooner and I believe that that is >a key opportunity for improvement in both policy >and implementation efforts going forward. > >There is lots of criticism of silos and I get >that but I dont think silos are bad. A silo is >simply a group of common interests. We need >those and it is helpful to have silos to >formulate impacts to policy and implementation >issues related to their particular >interests. The problem is not silos but rather >that we restrict ourselves to our silos too >long. I am becoming convinced that we need to >discover ways to work together across silos sooner in our processes. > >Many of you have heard me say that I dont think >that changing processes or structure will help >us much if we do not change behavior. In >addition to all the ideas each of you have >communicated, I think that we need to focus >directly on how we can improve our collaboration >across silos earlier. That would mean of course >that each of us in our silos would need to >accept the fact that collaboration is essential >to the success of the multi-stakeholder model, >but that is easier said than done. It is >important for each silo to clearly communicate >its positions and collectively for us to >identify our differences, but then we need to >come together and seek ways that we can >compromise to come up with solutions that most >can support even when they do not get everything >they wanted. Is that doable? I dont know but I hope so. > >Chuck > >From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] >Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:37 AM >To: Alan Greenberg >Cc: Mike O'Connor; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon >- Blacknight; ><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; >Gomes, Chuck; Paul Diaz; ><mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com; ><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 > >Sorry for the delay, just getting up to speed on >this thread. A few thoughts/reactions: > >- I agree with Mikey's overall point that we >need to invest heavily in "onboarding" new >participants. The veterans have to be >answerable to their overlords, and the folks >paying the bills want to see their >representatives "move up" in the ICANN food >chain, as it helps justify the continued costs >(including opportunity) associated with >participation in this beast. One of the ideas >we kicked around in the RrSG is an informal >mentor/protege program, where new blood can be >assigned to assist a more experienced member for some introductory period.... > >- Also agree with Alan that the PDP works, when >it is used properly. But when it comes to PDPs >that have "failed," I would point out that in >many case these involved ICANN over-reaching in >to areas that are well beyond the technical >coordination of the DNS. Whenever ICANN looks >into the mirror and sees a new kind of >competition authority, or WIPO, or a content >regulator, or a consumer protection group, then >you can always count on the resulting PDP to be messy and unsatisfactory. > >- And, frankly, there is a bit of a culture >problem when it comes to the expected level of >effort for PDP work. Some participants are, in >my opinion, only interested in chair warming. >They attend meetings and calls and speak up when >it suits them, but to keep PDPs on an aggressive >schedule folks will occasionally have to do some >homework (gather data, write a draft, review >slides/text, lead a subteam). Even on those >rare occasions when we have sufficient >participants, it's tough to get everyone pulling on the rope. > >Just my initial thoughts. I look forward to our call..... > >Thanks-- > >J. > >Sent from my iPad > >On Aug 7, 2013, at 23:04, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >A couple of more thought Mikey (and again, they are mine). >When you are thinking about how to get more >people involved (and up the very steep learning >curve of what some of these issues are about - >even the "simple" ones tend to have a lot of >complex wrinkles), consider those who do not >have any sponsor to pay their way and give them >a bunch of meetings to start to feel at home. Of >the people we get appointed to the ALAC, only a >minority really take to ICANN and the policy >process. And getting people involved who have >never seen an ICANN meeting, or see one every N >years, has not proven very successful. >The undefined "public interest" is not going to >go away. How do we make sure it is being addressed in PDPs? >In my mind, the new PDP process is a good >improvement, but most of the changes were >actually in place (or we were moving there) >before the new process was adopted. So I think >the change you are seeing is a gradual >improvement of the process used, and not really >due to the new Bylaw words and such (not to >minimize the importance of some things such as >the preliminary Issue Report, but I don't think >that is why we are doing better. It is not the >IRTP or Locking PDPs that are the challenge. We >understand how to do those. It is the difficult >ones that we need to do better. It remains to be >seen what is going to come out of the IGO/INGO >PDP, and when we get to the next Whois/Directory >Services one, things may get challenging again. >And ones with large $ involved, with both sides >present at the table, are going to be real hard. >So I don't think the PDP is "broken". But how it >is executed needs to be modified to meet the more challenging of situations. >Alan >At 07/08/2013 11:42 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote: >hi Alan, >a couple ideas come to mind from your list of questions. >first, another Mikey Picture. this one >highlights an idea that is emerging for me, but >not quite fully-baked. i think one key piece >that's missing from the current policy process >is an orderly way to bring in New Blood. so our >current crop of PDP participants is "graduating" >to other tasks (constituency-leadership, >new-jobs-with-applicants, expert working-groups, >whatever) but we aren't filling in the gaps they >leave with new people who are well-prepared to >take up the slack. with that in mind, here's my >Revision Zero picture of the on-ramp for new >participants and the off-ramp for those of us >who want to wind down a little bit. there are >some things i don't like, but this is close enough for jazz. ><2e11bd8.jpg> > >it seems to me that we could see a lot of >benefit from building a deeper pool of people in >the "contribute" and "lead" layers of all AC/SOs >if we paid more attention to the onramp for new >folks (enter -> discover -> learn -> practice), >and take better advantage of the old-timers by >having offering corresponding tasks that they >could help with as they wind down (recruit new >people, guide them into the parts of ICANN that >might interest them, help them learn the ropes, >help them polish their early efforts, assist >them as they contribute, and mentor the leadership layer). > >it also seems to me that there's a completely >blurry continuum between the "outreach" effort >and the "policy" effort that's being missed >right now. my sense is that currently the >outreach folks don't really know much about the >policy side and thus aren't meeting with much >success in bringing people on board in a way >that they're ready to jump into >policy-making. meanwhile, i think the policy >side is being starved for resources (and not >taking best advantage of the resources that are >already here). some kind of blending of these >two functions might be a way to beef up that >pool of contributors and leaders. i think this >could be cheap, and rewarding for everybody. >note that this picture isn't just aimed at the >GNSO. and to that point i think it would be >helpful if we got better that >cross-organizational stuff. again, i think >we're under-utilizing our old-timers. getting >better at the cross-organizational stuff could also be cheap/fun. >second reaction, since i've been on all the WGs >you mention Alan (and had a chair role in a >couple). i think the WG process has gotten a >LOT better as the GNSO has settled into the new >PDP that came out of the last Review. the >trouble is that these changes take time to take >hold, and we're only now starting to see our >first complete PDPs out of that new >process. IRTP, Locking, Thick Whois are good >examples of pretty-rapid, pretty-good >efforts. i like those ones where the Council and Board votes are unanimous. >big point: don't be too quick to "fix" the PDP >just yet -- that's like overwatering a garden or >over-pruning a bonsai tree. let the core >process mature a little bit more. pay more >attention to that which surrounds that core >policy-making activity for now. plenty of room for improvement there. >Vertical Integration was tough. a lot of you >were on it. Roberto and i co-chaired it. i >think that PDP is an exception that proves a few >of the rules. here are the rules it proved for me: >- charter PDPs carefully. ambiguities in the VI >charter meant that we had a bit of a hill to >climb before we could really even get under >way. a lot of our energy was spent trying to >out-guess the Board, and the Council's reaction >to the Board's decisions. it felt to me like a >double-blind poker game sometimes. i had a >tough time chairing Fast Flux too -- again, the >charter wasn't very good. i wrote a pretty >detailed discussion about the FFlux charter >which you can read here -- ><http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf>http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf >(note: this was written in 2008, so while there >are good ideas in there, some things have >changed since then -- but there's lots of >role/responsibility discussion that still applies today). >- protect the schedule. i'm still convinced we >could have arrived at consensus (or rough >consensus) in VI, had we not been jerked around >on our schedule the way we were. this is a >lesson that generalizes nicely to the whole >new-gTLD program (by the way, that PDP left a >lot to be desired in terms of implementation >detail, no?). i think we (all of us) have got a >lot of lessons to learn about how the schedule >of the new gTLD program was >managed. expectations are all over the map. it >remains, to this very day, a source of >conflict. my view is that PDPs are especially >vulnerable to schedule-pressure because it cuts >off an important >"let's-take-time-to-figure-this-out" premise >that underlies consensus decision-making. a >similar impact to the house-limit on the state of play in a casino. > >- keep the "layers" clear. i share the view >that the bottom of the the bottom-up process >ought to be where the rigorous discussions, >leading to precise language, ought to take >place. non-consensus ("representational") >layers above (e.g. GNSO Council and Board) >should either say "yes, good job" or "no, try >again" but i don't think they are as well >equipped to actually dive in and chew on the >details. i think we tend to get into trouble >when we deviate from that approach. final VI >point -- the Board really surprised me when it >gave us that really-short (2-week) deadline at >the end of VI and then took the decision upon >itself when we said we couldn't get done that >fast. while i support the Board's decision, i'm not sure it's a real good one. >see? all that stuff off my chest and now >there's more oxygen available for our conference >call. thanks for your points Alan. maybe some >of the others want to a) add on to this thread or b) ask more questions? > >mikey >On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >We'll follow up with something that is more than >just my opinion, but here goes with some of my thoughts. >1. There is little question that the current PDP >can work well (ie all sides represented in the >process and sound balanced policy as an outcome) >in some instances. I think the current IRTP PDPs >and Lock are fine illustrations. All parties >working in good faith to find a common ground. >2. Vertical Integration is one of the PDPs that >attracts the most attention. Some people think >that a deadlock is a reasonable outcome, given >that it highlights the issues and punts to the >Board to make the decision. Other feel the Board >should never need to make such a decision, and >at best (and I am paraphrasing one Board member >during the Durban ATRT-Board interaction) the >Board should take an interim do-no-harm decision >and then push back to the GNSO. >3. You know I will raise PEDNR as another >example. It took far too long to produce >relatively little. I personally think that it >was a very poor use of time and did not meet the >original goals and is a good example of the >inability to attract sufficient non-contracted >parties to a PDP unless it is very emotionally charged. >4. If we were to (heaven forbid) re-do the new >gTLD policy using the current rules, would be >any better at getting something that is not >mired in the controversy of the current process. >The bottom line is that ICANN has a number of >responsibilities but setting policy for the gTLD >space is the one that it spends the most time on >and is essentially a make-or-break function for >the organization. Can we rely on the GNSO PDP to >make sound policy representing the balanced >needs of all stakeholders, both present and not >present, and in the public interest? >Alan >At 07/08/2013 09:45 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote: >hi all, >could somebody unpack this a little >bit? "whether the current GNSO PDP process >satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder >model and Internet users" is a pretty broad >topic (to put it mildly). presuming that this >is going to be a 1-hour call, 90 minutes at >most, i would find it helpful if the ATRT2 could >come up with 3-4 questions you would like us to >think about and build an agenda from there. > >thanks, > >mikey > >On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Alice Jansen ><<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org > wrote: >Dear All, >It is my understanding that my colleague Charla >has been touched with you to schedule a call >with the Second Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2). > The ATRT2's activities are focused on > paragraph 9.1 of the AoC where ICANN commits to > maintain and improve robust mechanisms for > public input, accountability, and transparency > so as to ensure that the outcomes of its > decision-making will reflect the public > interest and be accountable to all > stakeholders. As part of its mandate, the ATRT > has decided to review the effectiveness of > ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization > (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP) and so > determine whether the current GNSO PDP process > satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder > model and Internet users. Given your experience > and expertise, the ATRT2 is interested in > hearing your thoughts and wishes you to share > your unique perspective with them. >The ATRT2 has a face-to-face meeting scheduled >for next week (141516 August) in Los Angeles. >Would you be available - tentatively on >Wednesday, 14 August - to join their session >remotely? Please confirm your availability via ><http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh >by Thursday, 8 August COB. >The Review Team has received your request for >preparatory materials. Rest assured that we will >provide you with more information as soon as available. >I look forward to reading your doodle poll >entries and thank you for your help. Please let >me know if you have any questions or concerns. >Thanks >Very best regards >Alice >---- >Alice Jansen >Strategic Initiatives Manager >ICANN >Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1 >B-1040 Brussels, Belgium >Office: <tel:%2B32%20289%20474%2003>+32 289 474 03 >Mobile: <tel:%2B32%204%2073%2031%2076%2056>+32 4 73 31 76 56 >Skype: alice_jansen_icann >Email: <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org > >PHONE: <tel:651-647-6109>651-647-6109, FAX: ><tel:866-280-2356>866-280-2356, WEB: ><http://www.haven2.com/>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > >PHONE: <tel:651-647-6109>651-647-6109, FAX: ><tel:866-280-2356>866-280-2356, WEB: ><http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > >

1 0

Re: [atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 07
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

>Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:01:39 -0400 >Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >From: Brian Cute <brianacute(a)gmail.com> >To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >CC: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, Mike > O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com>, Alice Jansen > <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight > <michele(a)blacknight.com>, > "rickert(a)anwaelte.de" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, "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> > >Thank you to everyone for your thoughts and >contributions. A point of order: I just checked >and it does not appear that this conversation is >taking place in the open - I didn't see the >ATRT2 email address above which means this is a >closed conversation (unless I missed it, in >which case never mind). ATRT2 work is open as a >default and this entire thread should be made >available on that list -- and if this good >conversation continues, should continue >there. I don't know why it wasn't open. If any >contributor has a reservation about their prior >inputs being made public, we are obliged to do >so. If you do, please note that and Staff can have your comments removed. > >My apologies for the oversight. > >Regards, >Brian > > >On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Gomes, Chuck ><<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: > >I confess to sitting back and simply >appreciating all the good contributions that are >being made on this. And I sincerely believe >they are good and constructive. My compliments >to all of you who have contributed. > > > >I decided I would jump in and hopefully be constructive as well. > > > >In the last couple months as we in the RySG, >including the NTAG, have been grappling with >finalizing details related to RPMs, TMCH, PDT & >PIC DRP implementation details, Ive realized >that we (RySG/NTAG) have worked within our own >silo too long and that we could have been more >effective and probably saved timed if we >involved people from other silos sooner. Let me >use the RPM issue as an example because a >comment period has just been opened on that. In >Durban we reached out to some representatives of >the IPC and had what I thought was a very >productive exchange regarding the RPM issues we >were working on. Ideally, I think we should >have done that sooner and I believe that that is >a key opportunity for improvement in both policy >and implementation efforts going forward. > > > >There is lots of criticism of silos and I get >that but I dont think silos are bad. A silo is >simply a group of common interests. We need >those and it is helpful to have silos to >formulate impacts to policy and implementation >issues related to their particular >interests. The problem is not silos but rather >that we restrict ourselves to our silos too >long. I am becoming convinced that we need to >discover ways to work together across silos sooner in our processes. > > > >Many of you have heard me say that I dont think >that changing processes or structure will help >us much if we do not change behavior. In >addition to all the ideas each of you have >communicated, I think that we need to focus >directly on how we can improve our collaboration >across silos earlier. That would mean of course >that each of us in our silos would need to >accept the fact that collaboration is essential >to the success of the multi-stakeholder model, >but that is easier said than done. It is >important for each silo to clearly communicate >its positions and collectively for us to >identify our differences, but then we need to >come together and seek ways that we can >compromise to come up with solutions that most >can support even when they do not get everything >they wanted. Is that doable? I dont know but I hope so. > > > >Chuck > > > >From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] >Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:37 AM >To: Alan Greenberg >Cc: Mike O'Connor; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon >- Blacknight; ><mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert(a)anwaelte.de; >Gomes, Chuck; Paul Diaz; ><mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com; ><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 > > > >Sorry for the delay, just getting up to speed on >this thread. A few thoughts/reactions: > > > >- I agree with Mikey's overall point that we >need to invest heavily in "onboarding" new >participants. The veterans have to be >answerable to their overlords, and the folks >paying the bills want to see their >representatives "move up" in the ICANN food >chain, as it helps justify the continued costs >(including opportunity) associated with >participation in this beast. One of the ideas >we kicked around in the RrSG is an informal >mentor/protege program, where new blood can be >assigned to assist a more experienced member for some introductory period.... > > > >- Also agree with Alan that the PDP works, when >it is used properly. But when it comes to PDPs >that have "failed," I would point out that in >many case these involved ICANN over-reaching in >to areas that are well beyond the technical >coordination of the DNS. Whenever ICANN looks >into the mirror and sees a new kind of >competition authority, or WIPO, or a content >regulator, or a consumer protection group, then >you can always count on the resulting PDP to be messy and unsatisfactory. > > > >- And, frankly, there is a bit of a culture >problem when it comes to the expected level of >effort for PDP work. Some participants are, in >my opinion, only interested in chair warming. >They attend meetings and calls and speak up when >it suits them, but to keep PDPs on an aggressive >schedule folks will occasionally have to do some >homework (gather data, write a draft, review >slides/text, lead a subteam). Even on those >rare occasions when we have sufficient >participants, it's tough to get everyone pulling on the rope. > > > >Just my initial thoughts. I look forward to our call..... > > > >Thanks-- > > > >J. > > > >Sent from my iPad > > >On Aug 7, 2013, at 23:04, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >A couple of more thought Mikey (and again, they are mine). > >When you are thinking about how to get more >people involved (and up the very steep learning >curve of what some of these issues are about - >even the "simple" ones tend to have a lot of >complex wrinkles), consider those who do not >have any sponsor to pay their way and give them >a bunch of meetings to start to feel at home. Of >the people we get appointed to the ALAC, only a >minority really take to ICANN and the policy >process. And getting people involved who have >never seen an ICANN meeting, or see one every N >years, has not proven very successful. > >The undefined "public interest" is not going to >go away. How do we make sure it is being addressed in PDPs? > >In my mind, the new PDP process is a good >improvement, but most of the changes were >actually in place (or we were moving there) >before the new process was adopted. So I think >the change you are seeing is a gradual >improvement of the process used, and not really >due to the new Bylaw words and such (not to >minimize the importance of some things such as >the preliminary Issue Report, but I don't think >that is why we are doing better. It is not the >IRTP or Locking PDPs that are the challenge. We >understand how to do those. It is the difficult >ones that we need to do better. It remains to be >seen what is going to come out of the IGO/INGO >PDP, and when we get to the next Whois/Directory >Services one, things may get challenging again. >And ones with large $ involved, with both sides >present at the table, are going to be real hard. > >So I don't think the PDP is "broken". But how it >is executed needs to be modified to meet the more challenging of situations. > >Alan > >At 07/08/2013 11:42 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote: > >hi Alan, > >a couple ideas come to mind from your list of questions. > >first, another Mikey Picture. this one >highlights an idea that is emerging for me, but >not quite fully-baked. i think one key piece >that's missing from the current policy process >is an orderly way to bring in New Blood. so our >current crop of PDP participants is "graduating" >to other tasks (constituency-leadership, >new-jobs-with-applicants, expert working-groups, >whatever) but we aren't filling in the gaps they >leave with new people who are well-prepared to >take up the slack. with that in mind, here's my >Revision Zero picture of the on-ramp for new >participants and the off-ramp for those of us >who want to wind down a little bit. there are >some things i don't like, but this is close enough for jazz. > ><2e11bd8.jpg> > > >it seems to me that we could see a lot of >benefit from building a deeper pool of people in >the "contribute" and "lead" layers of all AC/SOs >if we paid more attention to the onramp for new >folks (enter -> discover -> learn -> practice), >and take better advantage of the old-timers by >having offering corresponding tasks that they >could help with as they wind down (recruit new >people, guide them into the parts of ICANN that >might interest them, help them learn the ropes, >help them polish their early efforts, assist >them as they contribute, and mentor the leadership layer). > >it also seems to me that there's a completely >blurry continuum between the "outreach" effort >and the "policy" effort that's being missed >right now. my sense is that currently the >outreach folks don't really know much about the >policy side and thus aren't meeting with much >success in bringing people on board in a way >that they're ready to jump into >policy-making. meanwhile, i think the policy >side is being starved for resources (and not >taking best advantage of the resources that are >already here). some kind of blending of these >two functions might be a way to beef up that >pool of contributors and leaders. i think this >could be cheap, and rewarding for everybody. > >note that this picture isn't just aimed at the >GNSO. and to that point i think it would be >helpful if we got better that >cross-organizational stuff. again, i think >we're under-utilizing our old-timers. getting >better at the cross-organizational stuff could also be cheap/fun. > >second reaction, since i've been on all the WGs >you mention Alan (and had a chair role in a >couple). i think the WG process has gotten a >LOT better as the GNSO has settled into the new >PDP that came out of the last Review. the >trouble is that these changes take time to take >hold, and we're only now starting to see our >first complete PDPs out of that new >process. IRTP, Locking, Thick Whois are good >examples of pretty-rapid, pretty-good >efforts. i like those ones where the Council and Board votes are unanimous. > >big point: don't be too quick to "fix" the PDP >just yet -- that's like overwatering a garden or >over-pruning a bonsai tree. let the core >process mature a little bit more. pay more >attention to that which surrounds that core >policy-making activity for now. plenty of room for improvement there. > >Vertical Integration was tough. a lot of you >were on it. Roberto and i co-chaired it. i >think that PDP is an exception that proves a few >of the rules. here are the rules it proved for me: > >- charter PDPs carefully. ambiguities in the VI >charter meant that we had a bit of a hill to >climb before we could really even get under >way. a lot of our energy was spent trying to >out-guess the Board, and the Council's reaction >to the Board's decisions. it felt to me like a >double-blind poker game sometimes. i had a >tough time chairing Fast Flux too -- again, the >charter wasn't very good. i wrote a pretty >detailed discussion about the FFlux charter >which you can read here -- ><http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf>http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf >(note: this was written in 2008, so while there >are good ideas in there, some things have >changed since then -- but there's lots of >role/responsibility discussion that still applies today). > >- protect the schedule. i'm still convinced we >could have arrived at consensus (or rough >consensus) in VI, had we not been jerked around >on our schedule the way we were. this is a >lesson that generalizes nicely to the whole >new-gTLD program (by the way, that PDP left a >lot to be desired in terms of implementation >detail, no?). i think we (all of us) have got a >lot of lessons to learn about how the schedule >of the new gTLD program was >managed. expectations are all over the map. it >remains, to this very day, a source of >conflict. my view is that PDPs are especially >vulnerable to schedule-pressure because it cuts >off an important >"let's-take-time-to-figure-this-out" premise >that underlies consensus decision-making. a >similar impact to the house-limit on the state of play in a casino. > >- keep the "layers" clear. i share the view >that the bottom of the the bottom-up process >ought to be where the rigorous discussions, >leading to precise language, ought to take >place. non-consensus ("representational") >layers above (e.g. GNSO Council and Board) >should either say "yes, good job" or "no, try >again" but i don't think they are as well >equipped to actually dive in and chew on the >details. i think we tend to get into trouble >when we deviate from that approach. final VI >point -- the Board really surprised me when it >gave us that really-short (2-week) deadline at >the end of VI and then took the decision upon >itself when we said we couldn't get done that >fast. while i support the Board's decision, i'm not sure it's a real good one. > >see? all that stuff off my chest and now >there's more oxygen available for our conference >call. thanks for your points Alan. maybe some >of the others want to a) add on to this thread or b) ask more questions? > >mikey > >On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: > > >We'll follow up with something that is more than >just my opinion, but here goes with some of my thoughts. > >1. There is little question that the current PDP >can work well (ie all sides represented in the >process and sound balanced policy as an outcome) >in some instances. I think the current IRTP PDPs >and Lock are fine illustrations. All parties >working in good faith to find a common ground. > >2. Vertical Integration is one of the PDPs that >attracts the most attention. Some people think >that a deadlock is a reasonable outcome, given >that it highlights the issues and punts to the >Board to make the decision. Other feel the Board >should never need to make such a decision, and >at best (and I am paraphrasing one Board member >during the Durban ATRT-Board interaction) the >Board should take an interim do-no-harm decision >and then push back to the GNSO. > >3. You know I will raise PEDNR as another >example. It took far too long to produce >relatively little. I personally think that it >was a very poor use of time and did not meet the >original goals and is a good example of the >inability to attract sufficient non-contracted >parties to a PDP unless it is very emotionally charged. > >4. If we were to (heaven forbid) re-do the new >gTLD policy using the current rules, would be >any better at getting something that is not >mired in the controversy of the current process. > >The bottom line is that ICANN has a number of >responsibilities but setting policy for the gTLD >space is the one that it spends the most time on >and is essentially a make-or-break function for >the organization. Can we rely on the GNSO PDP to >make sound policy representing the balanced >needs of all stakeholders, both present and not >present, and in the public interest? > >Alan > >At 07/08/2013 09:45 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote: > >hi all, > >could somebody unpack this a little >bit? "whether the current GNSO PDP process >satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder >model and Internet users" is a pretty broad >topic (to put it mildly). presuming that this >is going to be a 1-hour call, 90 minutes at >most, i would find it helpful if the ATRT2 could >come up with 3-4 questions you would like us to >think about and build an agenda from there. > >thanks, > >mikey > > >On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Alice Jansen ><<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org > wrote: > > >Dear All, >It is my understanding that my colleague Charla >has been touched with you to schedule a call >with the Second Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2). > The ATRT2's activities are focused on > paragraph 9.1 of the AoC where ICANN commits to > maintain and improve robust mechanisms for > public input, accountability, and transparency > so as to ensure that the outcomes of its > decision-making will reflect the public > interest and be accountable to all > stakeholders. As part of its mandate, the ATRT > has decided to review the effectiveness of > ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization > (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP) and so > determine whether the current GNSO PDP process > satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder > model and Internet users. Given your experience > and expertise, the ATRT2 is interested in > hearing your thoughts and wishes you to share > your unique perspective with them. >The ATRT2 has a face-to-face meeting scheduled >for next week (141516 August) in Los Angeles. >Would you be available - tentatively on >Wednesday, 14 August - to join their session >remotely? Please confirm your availability via ><http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh >by Thursday, 8 August COB. >The Review Team has received your request for >preparatory materials. Rest assured that we will >provide you with more information as soon as available. >I look forward to reading your doodle poll >entries and thank you for your help. Please let >me know if you have any questions or concerns. >Thanks >Very best regards >Alice >---- >Alice Jansen >Strategic Initiatives Manager >ICANN >Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1 >B-1040 Brussels, Belgium >Office: <tel:%2B32%20289%20474%2003>+32 289 474 03 >Mobile: <tel:%2B32%204%2073%2031%2076%2056>+32 4 73 31 76 56 >Skype: alice_jansen_icann >Email: <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org > > > >PHONE: <tel:651-647-6109>651-647-6109, FAX: ><tel:866-280-2356>866-280-2356, WEB: ><http://www.haven2.com/>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > > > >PHONE: <tel:651-647-6109>651-647-6109, FAX: ><tel:866-280-2356>866-280-2356, WEB: ><http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >

1 0

Re: [atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 06
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

>From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >CC: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, > Michele Neylon - Blacknight > <michele(a)blacknight.com>, "rickert(a)anwaelte.de" > <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, > "roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com" <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, > "jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz" <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, Avri Doria > <avri(a)ella.com>, Marika Konings > <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "Larisa B. > Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, Charla Shambley > <charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute(a)pir.org> >Subject: RE: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 14:26:46 +0000 >Accept-Language: en-US > >I confess to sitting back and simply >appreciating all the good contributions that are >being made on this. And I sincerely believe >they are good and constructive. My compliments >to all of you who have contributed. > >I decided I would jump in and hopefully be constructive as well. > >In the last couple months as we in the RySG, >including the NTAG, have been grappling with >finalizing details related to RPMs, TMCH, PDT & >PIC DRP implementation details, Ive realized >that we (RySG/NTAG) have worked within our own >silo too long and that we could have been more >effective and probably saved timed if we >involved people from other silos sooner. Let me >use the RPM issue as an example because a >comment period has just been opened on that. In >Durban we reached out to some representatives of >the IPC and had what I thought was a very >productive exchange regarding the RPM issues we >were working on. Ideally, I think we should >have done that sooner and I believe that that is >a key opportunity for improvement in both policy >and implementation efforts going forward. > >There is lots of criticism of silos and I get >that but I dont think silos are bad. A silo is >simply a group of common interests. We need >those and it is helpful to have silos to >formulate impacts to policy and implementation >issues related to their particular >interests. The problem is not silos but rather >that we restrict ourselves to our silos too >long. I am becoming convinced that we need to >discover ways to work together across silos sooner in our processes. > >Many of you have heard me say that I dont think >that changing processes or structure will help >us much if we do not change behavior. In >addition to all the ideas each of you have >communicated, I think that we need to focus >directly on how we can improve our collaboration >across silos earlier. That would mean of course >that each of us in our silos would need to >accept the fact that collaboration is essential >to the success of the multi-stakeholder model, >but that is easier said than done. It is >important for each silo to clearly communicate >its positions and collectively for us to >identify our differences, but then we need to >come together and seek ways that we can >compromise to come up with solutions that most >can support even when they do not get everything >they wanted. Is that doable? I dont know but I hope so. > >Chuck > >From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] >Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:37 AM >To: Alan Greenberg >Cc: Mike O'Connor; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon >- Blacknight; rickert(a)anwaelte.de; Gomes, Chuck; >Paul Diaz; roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com; >jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz; Avri Doria; Marika >Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute >Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 > >Sorry for the delay, just getting up to speed on >this thread. A few thoughts/reactions: > >- I agree with Mikey's overall point that we >need to invest heavily in "onboarding" new >participants. The veterans have to be >answerable to their overlords, and the folks >paying the bills want to see their >representatives "move up" in the ICANN food >chain, as it helps justify the continued costs >(including opportunity) associated with >participation in this beast. One of the ideas >we kicked around in the RrSG is an informal >mentor/protege program, where new blood can be >assigned to assist a more experienced member for some introductory period.... > >- Also agree with Alan that the PDP works, when >it is used properly. But when it comes to PDPs >that have "failed," I would point out that in >many case these involved ICANN over-reaching in >to areas that are well beyond the technical >coordination of the DNS. Whenever ICANN looks >into the mirror and sees a new kind of >competition authority, or WIPO, or a content >regulator, or a consumer protection group, then >you can always count on the resulting PDP to be messy and unsatisfactory. > >- And, frankly, there is a bit of a culture >problem when it comes to the expected level of >effort for PDP work. Some participants are, in >my opinion, only interested in chair warming. >They attend meetings and calls and speak up when >it suits them, but to keep PDPs on an aggressive >schedule folks will occasionally have to do some >homework (gather data, write a draft, review >slides/text, lead a subteam). Even on those >rare occasions when we have sufficient >participants, it's tough to get everyone pulling on the rope. > >Just my initial thoughts. I look forward to our call..... > >Thanks-- > >J. > >Sent from my iPad > >On Aug 7, 2013, at 23:04, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >A couple of more thought Mikey (and again, they are mine). >When you are thinking about how to get more >people involved (and up the very steep learning >curve of what some of these issues are about - >even the "simple" ones tend to have a lot of >complex wrinkles), consider those who do not >have any sponsor to pay their way and give them >a bunch of meetings to start to feel at home. Of >the people we get appointed to the ALAC, only a >minority really take to ICANN and the policy >process. And getting people involved who have >never seen an ICANN meeting, or see one every N >years, has not proven very successful. >The undefined "public interest" is not going to >go away. How do we make sure it is being addressed in PDPs? >In my mind, the new PDP process is a good >improvement, but most of the changes were >actually in place (or we were moving there) >before the new process was adopted. So I think >the change you are seeing is a gradual >improvement of the process used, and not really >due to the new Bylaw words and such (not to >minimize the importance of some things such as >the preliminary Issue Report, but I don't think >that is why we are doing better. It is not the >IRTP or Locking PDPs that are the challenge. We >understand how to do those. It is the difficult >ones that we need to do better. It remains to be >seen what is going to come out of the IGO/INGO >PDP, and when we get to the next Whois/Directory >Services one, things may get challenging again. >And ones with large $ involved, with both sides >present at the table, are going to be real hard. > >So I don't think the PDP is "broken". But how it >is executed needs to be modified to meet the more challenging of situations. >Alan >At 07/08/2013 11:42 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote: >hi Alan, >a couple ideas come to mind from your list of questions. >first, another Mikey Picture. this one >highlights an idea that is emerging for me, but >not quite fully-baked. i think one key piece >that's missing from the current policy process >is an orderly way to bring in New Blood. so our >current crop of PDP participants is "graduating" >to other tasks (constituency-leadership, >new-jobs-with-applicants, expert working-groups, >whatever) but we aren't filling in the gaps they >leave with new people who are well-prepared to >take up the slack. with that in mind, here's my >Revision Zero picture of the on-ramp for new >participants and the off-ramp for those of us >who want to wind down a little bit. there are >some things i don't like, but this is close enough for jazz. ><2e11bd8.jpg> > >it seems to me that we could see a lot of >benefit from building a deeper pool of people in >the "contribute" and "lead" layers of all AC/SOs >if we paid more attention to the onramp for new >folks (enter -> discover -> learn -> practice), >and take better advantage of the old-timers by >having offering corresponding tasks that they >could help with as they wind down (recruit new >people, guide them into the parts of ICANN that >might interest them, help them learn the ropes, >help them polish their early efforts, assist >them as they contribute, and mentor the leadership layer). >it also seems to me that there's a completely >blurry continuum between the "outreach" effort >and the "policy" effort that's being missed >right now. my sense is that currently the >outreach folks don't really know much about the >policy side and thus aren't meeting with much >success in bringing people on board in a way >that they're ready to jump into >policy-making. meanwhile, i think the policy >side is being starved for resources (and not >taking best advantage of the resources that are >already here). some kind of blending of these >two functions might be a way to beef up that >pool of contributors and leaders. i think this >could be cheap, and rewarding for everybody. >note that this picture isn't just aimed at the >GNSO. and to that point i think it would be >helpful if we got better that >cross-organizational stuff. again, i think >we're under-utilizing our old-timers. getting >better at the cross-organizational stuff could also be cheap/fun. >second reaction, since i've been on all the WGs >you mention Alan (and had a chair role in a >couple). i think the WG process has gotten a >LOT better as the GNSO has settled into the new >PDP that came out of the last Review. the >trouble is that these changes take time to take >hold, and we're only now starting to see our >first complete PDPs out of that new >process. IRTP, Locking, Thick Whois are good >examples of pretty-rapid, pretty-good >efforts. i like those ones where the Council and Board votes are unanimous. >big point: don't be too quick to "fix" the PDP >just yet -- that's like overwatering a garden or >over-pruning a bonsai tree. let the core >process mature a little bit more. pay more >attention to that which surrounds that core >policy-making activity for now. plenty of room for improvement there. > >Vertical Integration was tough. a lot of you >were on it. Roberto and i co-chaired it. i >think that PDP is an exception that proves a few >of the rules. here are the rules it proved for me: >- charter PDPs carefully. ambiguities in the VI >charter meant that we had a bit of a hill to >climb before we could really even get under >way. a lot of our energy was spent trying to >out-guess the Board, and the Council's reaction >to the Board's decisions. it felt to me like a >double-blind poker game sometimes. i had a >tough time chairing Fast Flux too -- again, the >charter wasn't very good. i wrote a pretty >detailed discussion about the FFlux charter >which you can read here -- ><http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf>http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf >(note: this was written in 2008, so while there >are good ideas in there, some things have >changed since then -- but there's lots of >role/responsibility discussion that still applies today). >- protect the schedule. i'm still convinced we >could have arrived at consensus (or rough >consensus) in VI, had we not been jerked around >on our schedule the way we were. this is a >lesson that generalizes nicely to the whole >new-gTLD program (by the way, that PDP left a >lot to be desired in terms of implementation >detail, no?). i think we (all of us) have got a >lot of lessons to learn about how the schedule >of the new gTLD program was >managed. expectations are all over the map. it >remains, to this very day, a source of >conflict. my view is that PDPs are especially >vulnerable to schedule-pressure because it cuts >off an important >"let's-take-time-to-figure-this-out" premise >that underlies consensus decision-making. a >similar impact to the house-limit on the state of play in a casino. >- keep the "layers" clear. i share the view >that the bottom of the the bottom-up process >ought to be where the rigorous discussions, >leading to precise language, ought to take >place. non-consensus ("representational") >layers above (e.g. GNSO Council and Board) >should either say "yes, good job" or "no, try >again" but i don't think they are as well >equipped to actually dive in and chew on the >details. i think we tend to get into trouble >when we deviate from that approach. final VI >point -- the Board really surprised me when it >gave us that really-short (2-week) deadline at >the end of VI and then took the decision upon >itself when we said we couldn't get done that >fast. while i support the Board's decision, i'm not sure it's a real good one. >see? all that stuff off my chest and now >there's more oxygen available for our conference >call. thanks for your points Alan. maybe some >of the others want to a) add on to this thread or b) ask more questions? > >mikey >On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: > >We'll follow up with something that is more than >just my opinion, but here goes with some of my thoughts. >1. There is little question that the current PDP >can work well (ie all sides represented in the >process and sound balanced policy as an outcome) >in some instances. I think the current IRTP PDPs >and Lock are fine illustrations. All parties >working in good faith to find a common ground. > >2. Vertical Integration is one of the PDPs that >attracts the most attention. Some people think >that a deadlock is a reasonable outcome, given >that it highlights the issues and punts to the >Board to make the decision. Other feel the Board >should never need to make such a decision, and >at best (and I am paraphrasing one Board member >during the Durban ATRT-Board interaction) the >Board should take an interim do-no-harm decision >and then push back to the GNSO. >3. You know I will raise PEDNR as another >example. It took far too long to produce >relatively little. I personally think that it >was a very poor use of time and did not meet the >original goals and is a good example of the >inability to attract sufficient non-contracted >parties to a PDP unless it is very emotionally charged. >4. If we were to (heaven forbid) re-do the new >gTLD policy using the current rules, would be >any better at getting something that is not >mired in the controversy of the current process. >The bottom line is that ICANN has a number of >responsibilities but setting policy for the gTLD >space is the one that it spends the most time on >and is essentially a make-or-break function for >the organization. Can we rely on the GNSO PDP to >make sound policy representing the balanced >needs of all stakeholders, both present and not >present, and in the public interest? >Alan >At 07/08/2013 09:45 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote: >hi all, >could somebody unpack this a little >bit? "whether the current GNSO PDP process >satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder >model and Internet users" is a pretty broad >topic (to put it mildly). presuming that this >is going to be a 1-hour call, 90 minutes at >most, i would find it helpful if the ATRT2 could >come up with 3-4 questions you would like us to >think about and build an agenda from there. >thanks, > >mikey > >On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Alice Jansen ><<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org > wrote: > >Dear All, >It is my understanding that my colleague Charla >has been touched with you to schedule a call >with the Second Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2). > The ATRT2's activities are focused on > paragraph 9.1 of the AoC where ICANN commits to > maintain and improve robust mechanisms for > public input, accountability, and transparency > so as to ensure that the outcomes of its > decision-making will reflect the public > interest and be accountable to all > stakeholders. As part of its mandate, the ATRT > has decided to review the effectiveness of > ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization > (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP) and so > determine whether the current GNSO PDP process > satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder > model and Internet users. Given your experience > and expertise, the ATRT2 is interested in > hearing your thoughts and wishes you to share > your unique perspective with them. >The ATRT2 has a face-to-face meeting scheduled >for next week (141516 August) in Los Angeles. >Would you be available - tentatively on >Wednesday, 14 August - to join their session >remotely? Please confirm your availability via ><http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh >by Thursday, 8 August COB. >The Review Team has received your request for >preparatory materials. Rest assured that we will >provide you with more information as soon as available. >I look forward to reading your doodle poll >entries and thank you for your help. Please let >me know if you have any questions or concerns. >Thanks >Very best regards >Alice >---- >Alice Jansen >Strategic Initiatives Manager >ICANN >Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1 >B-1040 Brussels, Belgium >Office: +32 289 474 03 >Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 >Skype: alice_jansen_icann >Email: <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org > >PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: ><http://www.haven2.com/>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > >PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: ><http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

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

Aug. 10, 2013

>From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >CC: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, > Michele Neylon - Blacknight > <michele(a)blacknight.com>, "rickert(a)anwaelte.de" > <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Paul Diaz > <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, > "roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com" <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, > "jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz" <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, Avri Doria > <avri(a)ella.com>, Marika Konings > <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "Larisa B. > Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, Charla Shambley > <charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute(a)pir.org> >Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 13:37:15 +0000 > > >Sorry for the delay, just getting up to speed on >this thread. A few thoughts/reactions: > >- I agree with Mikey's overall point that we >need to invest heavily in "onboarding" new >participants. The veterans have to be >answerable to their overlords, and the folks >paying the bills want to see their >representatives "move up" in the ICANN food >chain, as it helps justify the continued costs >(including opportunity) associated with >participation in this beast. One of the ideas >we kicked around in the RrSG is an informal >mentor/protege program, where new blood can be >assigned to assist a more experienced member for some introductory period.... > >- Also agree with Alan that the PDP works, when >it is used properly. But when it comes to PDPs >that have "failed," I would point out that in >many case these involved ICANN over-reaching in >to areas that are well beyond the technical >coordination of the DNS. Whenever ICANN looks >into the mirror and sees a new kind of >competition authority, or WIPO, or a content >regulator, or a consumer protection group, then >you can always count on the resulting PDP to be messy and unsatisfactory. > >- And, frankly, there is a bit of a culture >problem when it comes to the expected level of >effort for PDP work. Some participants are, in >my opinion, only interested in chair warming. >They attend meetings and calls and speak up when >it suits them, but to keep PDPs on an aggressive >schedule folks will occasionally have to do some >homework (gather data, write a draft, review >slides/text, lead a subteam). Even on those >rare occasions when we have sufficient >participants, it's tough to get everyone pulling on the rope. > >Just my initial thoughts. I look forward to our call..... > >Thanks-- > >J. > >Sent from my iPad > >On Aug 7, 2013, at 23:04, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >>A couple of more thought Mikey (and again, they are mine). >> >>When you are thinking about how to get more >>people involved (and up the very steep learning >>curve of what some of these issues are about - >>even the "simple" ones tend to have a lot of >>complex wrinkles), consider those who do not >>have any sponsor to pay their way and give them >>a bunch of meetings to start to feel at home. >>Of the people we get appointed to the ALAC, >>only a minority really take to ICANN and the >>policy process. And getting people involved who >>have never seen an ICANN meeting, or see one >>every N years, has not proven very successful. >> >>The undefined "public interest" is not going to >>go away. How do we make sure it is being addressed in PDPs? >> >>In my mind, the new PDP process is a good >>improvement, but most of the changes were >>actually in place (or we were moving there) >>before the new process was adopted. So I think >>the change you are seeing is a gradual >>improvement of the process used, and not really >>due to the new Bylaw words and such (not to >>minimize the importance of some things such as >>the preliminary Issue Report, but I don't think >>that is why we are doing better. It is not the >>IRTP or Locking PDPs that are the challenge. We >>understand how to do those. It is the difficult >>ones that we need to do better. It remains to >>be seen what is going to come out of the >>IGO/INGO PDP, and when we get to the next >>Whois/Directory Services one, things may get >>challenging again. And ones with large $ >>involved, with both sides present at the table, are going to be real hard. >> >>So I don't think the PDP is "broken". But how >>it is executed needs to be modified to meet the more challenging of situations. >> >>Alan >> >>At 07/08/2013 11:42 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote: >>>hi Alan, >>> >>>a couple ideas come to mind from your list of questions. >>> >>>first, another Mikey Picture. this one >>>highlights an idea that is emerging for me, >>>but not quite fully-baked. i think one key >>>piece that's missing from the current policy >>>process is an orderly way to bring in New >>>Blood. so our current crop of PDP >>>participants is "graduating" to other tasks >>>(constituency-leadership, >>>new-jobs-with-applicants, expert >>>working-groups, whatever) but we aren't >>>filling in the gaps they leave with new people >>>who are well-prepared to take up the >>>slack. with that in mind, here's my Revision >>>Zero picture of the on-ramp for new >>>participants and the off-ramp for those of us >>>who want to wind down a little bit. there are >>>some things i don't like, but this is close enough for jazz. >>> >>><2e11bd8.jpg> >>> >>> >>>it seems to me that we could see a lot of >>>benefit from building a deeper pool of people >>>in the "contribute" and "lead" layers of all >>>AC/SOs if we paid more attention to the onramp >>>for new folks (enter -> discover -> learn -> >>>practice), and take better advantage of the >>>old-timers by having offering corresponding >>>tasks that they could help with as they wind >>>down (recruit new people, guide them into the >>>parts of ICANN that might interest them, help >>>them learn the ropes, help them polish their >>>early efforts, assist them as they contribute, >>>and mentor the leadership layer). >>> >>>it also seems to me that there's a completely >>>blurry continuum between the "outreach" effort >>>and the "policy" effort that's being missed >>>right now. my sense is that currently the >>>outreach folks don't really know much about >>>the policy side and thus aren't meeting with >>>much success in bringing people on board in a >>>way that they're ready to jump into >>>policy-making. meanwhile, i think the policy >>>side is being starved for resources (and not >>>taking best advantage of the resources that >>>are already here). some kind of blending of >>>these two functions might be a way to beef up >>>that pool of contributors and leaders. i >>>think this could be cheap, and rewarding for everybody. >>> >>>note that this picture isn't just aimed at the >>>GNSO. and to that point i think it would be >>>helpful if we got better that >>>cross-organizational stuff. again, i think >>>we're under-utilizing our old-timers. getting >>>better at the cross-organizational stuff could also be cheap/fun. >>> >>>second reaction, since i've been on all the >>>WGs you mention Alan (and had a chair role in >>>a couple). i think the WG process has gotten >>>a LOT better as the GNSO has settled into the >>>new PDP that came out of the last Review. the >>>trouble is that these changes take time to >>>take hold, and we're only now starting to see >>>our first complete PDPs out of that new >>>process. IRTP, Locking, Thick Whois are good >>>examples of pretty-rapid, pretty-good >>>efforts. i like those ones where the Council and Board votes are unanimous. >>> >>>big point: don't be too quick to "fix" the PDP >>>just yet -- that's like overwatering a garden >>>or over-pruning a bonsai tree. let the core >>>process mature a little bit more. pay more >>>attention to that which surrounds that core >>>policy-making activity for now. plenty of room for improvement there. >>> >>>Vertical Integration was tough. a lot of you >>>were on it. Roberto and i co-chaired it. i >>>think that PDP is an exception that proves a >>>few of the rules. here are the rules it proved for me: >>> >>>- charter PDPs carefully. ambiguities in the >>>VI charter meant that we had a bit of a hill >>>to climb before we could really even get under >>>way. a lot of our energy was spent trying to >>>out-guess the Board, and the Council's >>>reaction to the Board's decisions. it felt to >>>me like a double-blind poker game >>>sometimes. i had a tough time chairing Fast >>>Flux too -- again, the charter wasn't very >>>good. i wrote a pretty detailed discussion >>>about the FFlux charter which you can read >>>here -- >>><http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf>http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf >>>(note: this was written in 2008, so while >>>there are good ideas in there, some things >>>have changed since then -- but there's lots of >>>role/responsibility discussion that still applies today). >>> >>>- protect the schedule. i'm still convinced we >>>could have arrived at consensus (or rough >>>consensus) in VI, had we not been jerked >>>around on our schedule the way we were. this >>>is a lesson that generalizes nicely to the >>>whole new-gTLD program (by the way, that PDP >>>left a lot to be desired in terms of >>>implementation detail, no?). i think we (all >>>of us) have got a lot of lessons to learn >>>about how the schedule of the new gTLD program >>>was managed. expectations are all over the >>>map. it remains, to this very day, a source >>>of conflict. my view is that PDPs are >>>especially vulnerable to schedule-pressure >>>because it cuts off an important >>>"let's-take-time-to-figure-this-out" premise >>>that underlies consensus decision-making. a >>>similar impact to the house-limit on the state of play in a casino. >>> >>>- keep the "layers" clear. i share the view >>>that the bottom of the the bottom-up process >>>ought to be where the rigorous discussions, >>>leading to precise language, ought to take >>>place. non-consensus ("representational") >>>layers above (e.g. GNSO Council and Board) >>>should either say "yes, good job" or "no, try >>>again" but i don't think they are as well >>>equipped to actually dive in and chew on the >>>details. i think we tend to get into trouble >>>when we deviate from that approach. final VI >>>point -- the Board really surprised me when it >>>gave us that really-short (2-week) deadline at >>>the end of VI and then took the decision upon >>>itself when we said we couldn't get done that >>>fast. while i support the Board's decision, i'm not sure it's a real good one. >>> >>>see? all that stuff off my chest and now >>>there's more oxygen available for our >>>conference call. thanks for your points >>>Alan. maybe some of the others want to a) add >>>on to this thread or b) ask more questions? >>> >>>mikey >>> >>>On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Alan Greenberg >>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>> >>>>We'll follow up with something that is more >>>>than just my opinion, but here goes with some of my thoughts. >>>> >>>>1. There is little question that the current >>>>PDP can work well (ie all sides represented >>>>in the process and sound balanced policy as >>>>an outcome) in some instances. I think the >>>>current IRTP PDPs and Lock are fine >>>>illustrations. All parties working in good faith to find a common ground. >>>> >>>>2. Vertical Integration is one of the PDPs >>>>that attracts the most attention. Some people >>>>think that a deadlock is a reasonable >>>>outcome, given that it highlights the issues >>>>and punts to the Board to make the decision. >>>>Other feel the Board should never need to >>>>make such a decision, and at best (and I am >>>>paraphrasing one Board member during the >>>>Durban ATRT-Board interaction) the Board >>>>should take an interim do-no-harm decision and then push back to the GNSO. >>>> >>>>3. You know I will raise PEDNR as another >>>>example. It took far too long to produce >>>>relatively little. I personally think that it >>>>was a very poor use of time and did not meet >>>>the original goals and is a good example of >>>>the inability to attract sufficient >>>>non-contracted parties to a PDP unless it is very emotionally charged. >>>> >>>>4. If we were to (heaven forbid) re-do the >>>>new gTLD policy using the current rules, >>>>would be any better at getting something that >>>>is not mired in the controversy of the current process. >>>> >>>>The bottom line is that ICANN has a number of >>>>responsibilities but setting policy for the >>>>gTLD space is the one that it spends the most >>>>time on and is essentially a make-or-break >>>>function for the organization. Can we rely on >>>>the GNSO PDP to make sound policy >>>>representing the balanced needs of all >>>>stakeholders, both present and not present, and in the public interest? >>>> >>>>Alan >>>> >>>>At 07/08/2013 09:45 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote: >>>>>hi all, >>>>> >>>>>could somebody unpack this a little >>>>>bit? "whether the current GNSO PDP process >>>>>satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder >>>>>model and Internet users" is a pretty broad >>>>>topic (to put it mildly). presuming that >>>>>this is going to be a 1-hour call, 90 >>>>>minutes at most, i would find it helpful if >>>>>the ATRT2 could come up with 3-4 questions >>>>>you would like us to think about and build an agenda from there. >>>>> >>>>>thanks, >>>>> >>>>>mikey >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Alice Jansen >>>>><<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Dear All, >>>>>>It is my understanding that my colleague >>>>>>Charla has been touched with you to >>>>>>schedule a call with the Second >>>>>>Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2). >>>>>> The ATRT2's activities are focused on >>>>>> paragraph 9.1 of the AoC where ICANN >>>>>> commits to maintain and improve robust >>>>>> mechanisms for public input, >>>>>> accountability, and transparency so as to >>>>>> ensure that the outcomes of its >>>>>> decision-making will reflect the public >>>>>> interest and be accountable to all >>>>>> stakeholders. As part of its mandate, the >>>>>> ATRT has decided to review the >>>>>> effectiveness of ICANN Generic Names >>>>>> Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy >>>>>> Development Process (PDP) and so determine >>>>>> whether the current GNSO PDP process >>>>>> satisfies the needs of the multi >>>>>> stakeholder model and Internet users. >>>>>> Given your experience and expertise, the >>>>>> ATRT2 is interested in hearing your >>>>>> thoughts and wishes you to share your unique perspective with them. >>>>>>The ATRT2 has a face-to-face meeting >>>>>>scheduled for next week (141516 August) >>>>>>in Los Angeles. Would you be available - >>>>>>tentatively on Wednesday, 14 August - to >>>>>>join their session remotely? Please confirm >>>>>>your availability via >>>>>><http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh >>>>>>by Thursday, 8 August COB. >>>>>>The Review Team has received your request >>>>>>for preparatory materials. Rest assured >>>>>>that we will provide you with more information as soon as available. >>>>>>I look forward to reading your doodle poll >>>>>>entries and thank you for your help. Please >>>>>>let me know if you have any questions or concerns. >>>>>>Thanks >>>>>>Very best regards >>>>>>Alice >>>>>>---- >>>>>>Alice Jansen >>>>>>Strategic Initiatives Manager >>>>>>ICANN >>>>>>Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1 >>>>>>B-1040 Brussels, Belgium >>>>>>Office: +32 289 474 03 >>>>>>Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 >>>>>>Skype: alice_jansen_icann >>>>>>Email: <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: >>>>><http://www.haven2.com/>www.haven2.com, >>>>>HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >>> >>> >>>PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: >>><http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >>>OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

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

Aug. 10, 2013

>Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 07:17:47 -0400 >Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >From: Brian Cute <brianacute(a)gmail.com> >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >CC: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, > Michele Neylon - Blacknight > <michele(a)blacknight.com>, "rickert(a)anwaelte.de" > <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, > "jbladel(a)godaddy.com" > <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, > "roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com" <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, > "jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz" <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, Avri Doria > <avri(a)ella.com>, Marika Konings > <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "Larisa B. > Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, Charla Shambley > <charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute(a)pir.org> > >Alan and Mikey, > >A few thoughts to add that I hope provide focus >for Mikey and the WG Chairs prior to our >interaction. Among the concerns ATRT2 has heard >during its data gathering phase (which we are >still in), are: 1) that certain stakeholders >have not been able to adequately participate - >that could be a "structural issue" or it could >be a "sufficient representation" issue or both; >and 2) that there has been manipulation of the >PDP process (from Yoav during the GNSO >interaction in Durban). He did not that his >allegations go back 2 years or longer and he has >been asked to provide data on that >point. Personally, I draw no conclusions from >Yoav's statements and will not until we see data >on those points. I think Mikey hits on a couple >of important issues regarding chartering the PDP >and "schedule pressure" and I hope Mikey and >other WG Chairs can elaborate on those points - >and others that address the effectiveness (or >not) of the PDP. Personally, I am not sure that >the question "is the PDP broken" is actually the >best question to focus on in assessing the >process. Even if that is a question put to the >ATRT2, I don't think we have seen enough data at >this point to draw any conclusions on it. I >hope this is helpful and look forward to input from the WG Chairs. > >Regards, >Brian > > >On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >A couple of more thought Mikey (and again, they are mine). > >When you are thinking about how to get more >people involved (and up the very steep learning >curve of what some of these issues are about - >even the "simple" ones tend to have a lot of >complex wrinkles), consider those who do not >have any sponsor to pay their way and give them >a bunch of meetings to start to feel at home. Of >the people we get appointed to the ALAC, only a >minority really take to ICANN and the policy >process. And getting people involved who have >never seen an ICANN meeting, or see one every N >years, has not proven very successful. > >The undefined "public interest" is not going to >go away. How do we make sure it is being addressed in PDPs? > >In my mind, the new PDP process is a good >improvement, but most of the changes were >actually in place (or we were moving there) >before the new process was adopted. So I think >the change you are seeing is a gradual >improvement of the process used, and not really >due to the new Bylaw words and such (not to >minimize the importance of some things such as >the preliminary Issue Report, but I don't think >that is why we are doing better. It is not the >IRTP or Locking PDPs that are the challenge. We >understand how to do those. It is the difficult >ones that we need to do better. It remains to be >seen what is going to come out of the IGO/INGO >PDP, and when we get to the next Whois/Directory >Services one, things may get challenging again. >And ones with large $ involved, with both sides >present at the table, are going to be real hard. > >So I don't think the PDP is "broken". But how it >is executed needs to be modified to meet the more challenging of situations. > >Alan > > >At 07/08/2013 11:42 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote: >>hi Alan, >> >>a couple ideas come to mind from your list of questions. >> >>first, another Mikey Picture. this one >>highlights an idea that is emerging for me, but >>not quite fully-baked. i think one key piece >>that's missing from the current policy process >>is an orderly way to bring in New Blood. so >>our current crop of PDP participants is >>"graduating" to other tasks >>(constituency-leadership, >>new-jobs-with-applicants, expert >>working-groups, whatever) but we aren't filling >>in the gaps they leave with new people who are >>well-prepared to take up the slack. with that >>in mind, here's my Revision Zero picture of the >>on-ramp for new participants and the off-ramp >>for those of us who want to wind down a little >>bit. there are some things i don't like, but this is close enough for jazz. >> >>[] >> >> >> >>it seems to me that we could see a lot of >>benefit from building a deeper pool of people >>in the "contribute" and "lead" layers of all >>AC/SOs if we paid more attention to the onramp >>for new folks (enter -> discover -> learn -> >>practice), and take better advantage of the >>old-timers by having offering corresponding >>tasks that they could help with as they wind >>down (recruit new people, guide them into the >>parts of ICANN that might interest them, help >>them learn the ropes, help them polish their >>early efforts, assist them as they contribute, >>and mentor the leadership layer). >> >>it also seems to me that there's a completely >>blurry continuum between the "outreach" effort >>and the "policy" effort that's being missed >>right now. my sense is that currently the >>outreach folks don't really know much about the >>policy side and thus aren't meeting with much >>success in bringing people on board in a way >>that they're ready to jump into >>policy-making. meanwhile, i think the policy >>side is being starved for resources (and not >>taking best advantage of the resources that are >>already here). some kind of blending of these >>two functions might be a way to beef up that >>pool of contributors and leaders. i think this >>could be cheap, and rewarding for everybody. >> >>note that this picture isn't just aimed at the >>GNSO. and to that point i think it would be >>helpful if we got better that >>cross-organizational stuff. again, i think >>we're under-utilizing our old-timers. getting >>better at the cross-organizational stuff could also be cheap/fun. >> >>second reaction, since i've been on all the WGs >>you mention Alan (and had a chair role in a >>couple). i think the WG process has gotten a >>LOT better as the GNSO has settled into the new >>PDP that came out of the last Review. the >>trouble is that these changes take time to take >>hold, and we're only now starting to see our >>first complete PDPs out of that new >>process. IRTP, Locking, Thick Whois are good >>examples of pretty-rapid, pretty-good >>efforts. i like those ones where the Council and Board votes are unanimous. >> >>big point: don't be too quick to "fix" the PDP >>just yet -- that's like overwatering a garden >>or over-pruning a bonsai tree. let the core >>process mature a little bit more. pay more >>attention to that which surrounds that core >>policy-making activity for now. plenty of room for improvement there. >> >>Vertical Integration was tough. a lot of you >>were on it. Roberto and i co-chaired it. i >>think that PDP is an exception that proves a >>few of the rules. here are the rules it proved for me: >> >>- charter PDPs carefully. ambiguities in the >>VI charter meant that we had a bit of a hill to >>climb before we could really even get under >>way. a lot of our energy was spent trying to >>out-guess the Board, and the Council's reaction >>to the Board's decisions. it felt to me like a >>double-blind poker game sometimes. i had a >>tough time chairing Fast Flux too -- again, the >>charter wasn't very good. i wrote a pretty >>detailed discussion about the FFlux charter >>which you can read here -- >><http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf>http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf >>(note: this was written in 2008, so while there >>are good ideas in there, some things have >>changed since then -- but there's lots of >>role/responsibility discussion that still applies today). >> >>- protect the schedule. i'm still convinced we >>could have arrived at consensus (or rough >>consensus) in VI, had we not been jerked around >>on our schedule the way we were. this is a >>lesson that generalizes nicely to the whole >>new-gTLD program (by the way, that PDP left a >>lot to be desired in terms of implementation >>detail, no?). i think we (all of us) have got >>a lot of lessons to learn about how the >>schedule of the new gTLD program was >>managed. expectations are all over the >>map. it remains, to this very day, a source of >>conflict. my view is that PDPs are especially >>vulnerable to schedule-pressure because it cuts >>off an important >>"let's-take-time-to-figure-this-out" premise >>that underlies consensus decision-making. a >>similar impact to the house-limit on the state of play in a casino. >> >>- keep the "layers" clear. i share the view >>that the bottom of the the bottom-up process >>ought to be where the rigorous discussions, >>leading to precise language, ought to take >>place. non-consensus ("representational") >>layers above (e.g. GNSO Council and Board) >>should either say "yes, good job" or "no, try >>again" but i don't think they are as well >>equipped to actually dive in and chew on the >>details. i think we tend to get into trouble >>when we deviate from that approach. final VI >>point -- the Board really surprised me when it >>gave us that really-short (2-week) deadline at >>the end of VI and then took the decision upon >>itself when we said we couldn't get done that >>fast. while i support the Board's decision, i'm not sure it's a real good one. >> >>see? all that stuff off my chest and now >>there's more oxygen available for our >>conference call. thanks for your points >>Alan. maybe some of the others want to a) add >>on to this thread or b) ask more questions? >> >>mikey >> >>On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >> >>>We'll follow up with something that is more >>>than just my opinion, but here goes with some of my thoughts. >>> >>>1. There is little question that the current >>>PDP can work well (ie all sides represented in >>>the process and sound balanced policy as an >>>outcome) in some instances. I think the >>>current IRTP PDPs and Lock are fine >>>illustrations. All parties working in good faith to find a common ground. >>> >>>2. Vertical Integration is one of the PDPs >>>that attracts the most attention. Some people >>>think that a deadlock is a reasonable outcome, >>>given that it highlights the issues and punts >>>to the Board to make the decision. Other feel >>>the Board should never need to make such a >>>decision, and at best (and I am paraphrasing >>>one Board member during the Durban ATRT-Board >>>interaction) the Board should take an interim >>>do-no-harm decision and then push back to the GNSO. >>> >>>3. You know I will raise PEDNR as another >>>example. It took far too long to produce >>>relatively little. I personally think that it >>>was a very poor use of time and did not meet >>>the original goals and is a good example of >>>the inability to attract sufficient >>>non-contracted parties to a PDP unless it is very emotionally charged. >>> >>>4. If we were to (heaven forbid) re-do the new >>>gTLD policy using the current rules, would be >>>any better at getting something that is not >>>mired in the controversy of the current process. >>> >>>The bottom line is that ICANN has a number of >>>responsibilities but setting policy for the >>>gTLD space is the one that it spends the most >>>time on and is essentially a make-or-break >>>function for the organization. Can we rely on >>>the GNSO PDP to make sound policy representing >>>the balanced needs of all stakeholders, both >>>present and not present, and in the public interest? >>> >>>Alan >>> >>>At 07/08/2013 09:45 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote: >>>>hi all, >>>> >>>>could somebody unpack this a little >>>>bit? "whether the current GNSO PDP process >>>>satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder >>>>model and Internet users" is a pretty broad >>>>topic (to put it mildly). presuming that >>>>this is going to be a 1-hour call, 90 minutes >>>>at most, i would find it helpful if the ATRT2 >>>>could come up with 3-4 questions you would >>>>like us to think about and build an agenda from there. >>>> >>>>thanks, >>>> >>>>mikey >>>> >>>> >>>>On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Alice Jansen >>>><<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org > wrote: >>>> >>>>>Dear All, >>>>>It is my understanding that my colleague >>>>>Charla has been touched with you to schedule >>>>>a call with the Second Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2). >>>>> The ATRT2's activities are focused on >>>>> paragraph 9.1 of the AoC where ICANN >>>>> commits to maintain and improve robust >>>>> mechanisms for public input, >>>>> accountability, and transparency so as to >>>>> ensure that the outcomes of its >>>>> decision-making will reflect the public >>>>> interest and be accountable to all >>>>> stakeholders. As part of its mandate, the >>>>> ATRT has decided to review the >>>>> effectiveness of ICANN Generic Names >>>>> Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy >>>>> Development Process (PDP) and so determine >>>>> whether the current GNSO PDP process >>>>> satisfies the needs of the multi >>>>> stakeholder model and Internet users. Given >>>>> your experience and expertise, the ATRT2 is >>>>> interested in hearing your thoughts and >>>>> wishes you to share your unique perspective with them. >>>>>The ATRT2 has a face-to-face meeting >>>>>scheduled for next week (141516 August) in >>>>>Los Angeles. Would you be available - >>>>>tentatively on Wednesday, 14 August - to >>>>>join their session remotely? Please confirm >>>>>your availability via >>>>><http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh >>>>>by Thursday, 8 August COB. >>>>>The Review Team has received your request >>>>>for preparatory materials. Rest assured that >>>>>we will provide you with more information as soon as available. >>>>>I look forward to reading your doodle poll >>>>>entries and thank you for your help. Please >>>>>let me know if you have any questions or concerns. >>>>>Thanks >>>>>Very best regards >>>>>Alice >>>>>---- >>>>>Alice Jansen >>>>>Strategic Initiatives Manager >>>>>ICANN >>>>>Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1 >>>>>B-1040 Brussels, Belgium >>>>>Office: <tel:%2B32%20289%20474%2003>+32 289 474 03 >>>>>Mobile: <tel:%2B32%204%2073%2031%2076%2056>+32 4 73 31 76 56 >>>>>Skype: alice_jansen_icann >>>>>Email: <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org >>>> >>>> >>>>PHONE: <tel:651-647-6109>651-647-6109, FAX: >>>><tel:866-280-2356>866-280-2356, WEB: >>>><http://www.haven2.com/>www.haven2.com, >>>>HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >> >> >>PHONE: <tel:651-647-6109>651-647-6109, FAX: >><tel:866-280-2356>866-280-2356, WEB: >><http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >>OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >> > >Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="2e11bd8.jpg"; x-mac-type=4A504547; > x-mac-creator=4A565752 >Content-ID: <.0> >X-Attachment-Id: d1614b4666f98c90_0.1 >

1 0

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

Aug. 10, 2013

>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 >From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> >Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:42:28 -0500 >CC: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight > <michele(a)blacknight.com>, > "rickert(a)anwaelte.de" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, > "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, "jbladel(a)godaddy.com" > <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, > "roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com" <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, > "jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz" <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, Avri Doria > <avri(a)ella.com>, Marika Konings > <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "Larisa B. > Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, Charla Shambley > <charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute(a)pir.org> >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Importance: high > >hi Alan, > >a couple ideas come to mind from your list of questions. > >first, another Mikey Picture. this one >highlights an idea that is emerging for me, but >not quite fully-baked. i think one key piece >that's missing from the current policy process >is an orderly way to bring in New Blood. so our >current crop of PDP participants is "graduating" >to other tasks (constituency-leadership, >new-jobs-with-applicants, expert working-groups, >whatever) but we aren't filling in the gaps they >leave with new people who are well-prepared to >take up the slack. with that in mind, here's my >Revision Zero picture of the on-ramp for new >participants and the off-ramp for those of us >who want to wind down a little bit. there are >some things i don't like, but this is close enough for jazz. > >[] > > > >it seems to me that we could see a lot of >benefit from building a deeper pool of people in >the "contribute" and "lead" layers of all AC/SOs >if we paid more attention to the onramp for new >folks (enter -> discover -> learn -> practice), >and take better advantage of the old-timers by >having offering corresponding tasks that they >could help with as they wind down (recruit new >people, guide them into the parts of ICANN that >might interest them, help them learn the ropes, >help them polish their early efforts, assist >them as they contribute, and mentor the leadership layer). > >it also seems to me that there's a completely >blurry continuum between the "outreach" effort >and the "policy" effort that's being missed >right now. my sense is that currently the >outreach folks don't really know much about the >policy side and thus aren't meeting with much >success in bringing people on board in a way >that they're ready to jump into >policy-making. meanwhile, i think the policy >side is being starved for resources (and not >taking best advantage of the resources that are >already here). some kind of blending of these >two functions might be a way to beef up that >pool of contributors and leaders. i think this >could be cheap, and rewarding for everybody. > >note that this picture isn't just aimed at the >GNSO. and to that point i think it would be >helpful if we got better that >cross-organizational stuff. again, i think >we're under-utilizing our old-timers. getting >better at the cross-organizational stuff could also be cheap/fun. > >second reaction, since i've been on all the WGs >you mention Alan (and had a chair role in a >couple). i think the WG process has gotten a >LOT better as the GNSO has settled into the new >PDP that came out of the last Review. the >trouble is that these changes take time to take >hold, and we're only now starting to see our >first complete PDPs out of that new >process. IRTP, Locking, Thick Whois are good >examples of pretty-rapid, pretty-good >efforts. i like those ones where the Council and Board votes are unanimous. > >big point: don't be too quick to "fix" the PDP >just yet -- that's like overwatering a garden or >over-pruning a bonsai tree. let the core >process mature a little bit more. pay more >attention to that which surrounds that core >policy-making activity for now. plenty of room for improvement there. > >Vertical Integration was tough. a lot of you >were on it. Roberto and i co-chaired it. i >think that PDP is an exception that proves a few >of the rules. here are the rules it proved for me: > >- charter PDPs carefully. ambiguities in the VI >charter meant that we had a bit of a hill to >climb before we could really even get under >way. a lot of our energy was spent trying to >out-guess the Board, and the Council's reaction >to the Board's decisions. it felt to me like a >double-blind poker game sometimes. i had a >tough time chairing Fast Flux too -- again, the >charter wasn't very good. i wrote a pretty >detailed discussion about the FFlux charter >which you can read here -- ><http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf>http://haven2.com/FF-observations.pdf >(note: this was written in 2008, so while there >are good ideas in there, some things have >changed since then -- but there's lots of >role/responsibility discussion that still applies today). > >- protect the schedule. i'm still convinced we >could have arrived at consensus (or rough >consensus) in VI, had we not been jerked around >on our schedule the way we were. this is a >lesson that generalizes nicely to the whole >new-gTLD program (by the way, that PDP left a >lot to be desired in terms of implementation >detail, no?). i think we (all of us) have got a >lot of lessons to learn about how the schedule >of the new gTLD program was >managed. expectations are all over the map. it >remains, to this very day, a source of >conflict. my view is that PDPs are especially >vulnerable to schedule-pressure because it cuts >off an important >"let's-take-time-to-figure-this-out" premise >that underlies consensus decision-making. a >similar impact to the house-limit on the state of play in a casino. > >- keep the "layers" clear. i share the view >that the bottom of the the bottom-up process >ought to be where the rigorous discussions, >leading to precise language, ought to take >place. non-consensus ("representational") >layers above (e.g. GNSO Council and Board) >should either say "yes, good job" or "no, try >again" but i don't think they are as well >equipped to actually dive in and chew on the >details. i think we tend to get into trouble >when we deviate from that approach. final VI >point -- the Board really surprised me when it >gave us that really-short (2-week) deadline at >the end of VI and then took the decision upon >itself when we said we couldn't get done that >fast. while i support the Board's decision, i'm not sure it's a real good one. > >see? all that stuff off my chest and now >there's more oxygen available for our conference >call. thanks for your points Alan. maybe some >of the others want to a) add on to this thread or b) ask more questions? > >mikey > >On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >>We'll follow up with something that is more >>than just my opinion, but here goes with some of my thoughts. >> >>1. There is little question that the current >>PDP can work well (ie all sides represented in >>the process and sound balanced policy as an >>outcome) in some instances. I think the current >>IRTP PDPs and Lock are fine illustrations. All >>parties working in good faith to find a common ground. >> >>2. Vertical Integration is one of the PDPs that >>attracts the most attention. Some people think >>that a deadlock is a reasonable outcome, given >>that it highlights the issues and punts to the >>Board to make the decision. Other feel the >>Board should never need to make such a >>decision, and at best (and I am paraphrasing >>one Board member during the Durban ATRT-Board >>interaction) the Board should take an interim >>do-no-harm decision and then push back to the GNSO. >> >>3. You know I will raise PEDNR as another >>example. It took far too long to produce >>relatively little. I personally think that it >>was a very poor use of time and did not meet >>the original goals and is a good example of the >>inability to attract sufficient non-contracted >>parties to a PDP unless it is very emotionally charged. >> >>4. If we were to (heaven forbid) re-do the new >>gTLD policy using the current rules, would be >>any better at getting something that is not >>mired in the controversy of the current process. >> >>The bottom line is that ICANN has a number of >>responsibilities but setting policy for the >>gTLD space is the one that it spends the most >>time on and is essentially a make-or-break >>function for the organization. Can we rely on >>the GNSO PDP to make sound policy representing >>the balanced needs of all stakeholders, both >>present and not present, and in the public interest? >> >>Alan >> >>At 07/08/2013 09:45 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote: >>>hi all, >>> >>>could somebody unpack this a little >>>bit? "whether the current GNSO PDP process >>>satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder >>>model and Internet users" is a pretty broad >>>topic (to put it mildly). presuming that this >>>is going to be a 1-hour call, 90 minutes at >>>most, i would find it helpful if the ATRT2 >>>could come up with 3-4 questions you would >>>like us to think about and build an agenda from there. >>> >>>thanks, >>> >>>mikey >>> >>> >>>On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Alice Jansen >>><<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org > wrote: >>> >>>>Dear All, >>>>It is my understanding that my colleague >>>>Charla has been touched with you to schedule >>>>a call with the Second Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2). >>>> The ATRT2's activities are focused on >>>> paragraph 9.1 of the AoC where ICANN commits >>>> to maintain and improve robust mechanisms >>>> for public input, accountability, and >>>> transparency so as to ensure that the >>>> outcomes of its decision-making will reflect >>>> the public interest and be accountable to >>>> all stakeholders. As part of its mandate, >>>> the ATRT has decided to review the >>>> effectiveness of ICANN Generic Names >>>> Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy >>>> Development Process (PDP) and so determine >>>> whether the current GNSO PDP process >>>> satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder >>>> model and Internet users. Given your >>>> experience and expertise, the ATRT2 is >>>> interested in hearing your thoughts and >>>> wishes you to share your unique perspective with them. >>>>The ATRT2 has a face-to-face meeting >>>>scheduled for next week (141516 August) in >>>>Los Angeles. Would you be available - >>>>tentatively on Wednesday, 14 August - to join >>>>their session remotely? Please confirm your >>>>availability via >>>><http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh>http://www.doodle.com/x9nk6czhz2exvsyh >>>>by Thursday, 8 August COB. >>>>The Review Team has received your request for >>>>preparatory materials. Rest assured that we >>>>will provide you with more information as soon as available. >>>>I look forward to reading your doodle poll >>>>entries and thank you for your help. Please >>>>let me know if you have any questions or concerns. >>>>Thanks >>>>Very best regards >>>>Alice >>>>---- >>>>Alice Jansen >>>>Strategic Initiatives Manager >>>>ICANN >>>>Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1 >>>>B-1040 Brussels, Belgium >>>>Office: +32 289 474 03 >>>>Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 >>>>Skype: alice_jansen_icann >>>>Email: <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>alice.jansen(a)icann.org >>> >>> >>>PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: >>><http://www.haven2.com/>www.haven2.com, >>>HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > > >PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: ><http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >

1 0