From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>, 'Mike O'Connor'
<mike@haven2.com>, 'Alan Greenberg' <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
CC: 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen@icann.org>, 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'
<michele@blacknight.com>, "rickert@anwaelte.de" <rickert@anwaelte.de>,
"jbladel@godaddy.com" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, 'Paul Diaz' <pdiaz@pir.org>,
"jeff.neuman@neustar.biz" <jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>, 'Avri Doria'
<avri@ella.com>, 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org>, "'Larisa B.
Gurnick'" <larisa.gurnick@icann.org>, 'Charla Shambley'
<charla.shambley@icann.org>, 'Brian Cute' <bcute@pir.org>
Subject: RE: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:19:29 +0000
Well said Roberto. I can’t help but make a non-constructive comment by pointing out that you are dating yourself when you refer to the “Name Council’, the name of the GNSO Council under the original DNSO. For those that don’t know, Roberto has been involved since before ICANN was formed in 1998, so he has a wealth of experience.
Chuck
From: Roberto Gaetano [ mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 5:46 AM
To: 'Mike O'Connor'; 'Alan Greenberg'
Cc: 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'; rickert@anwaelte.de; Gomes, Chuck; jbladel@godaddy.com; 'Paul Diaz'; jeff.neuman@neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria'; 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
Subject: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
Adding to what Mikey has already said, I think that what was bad was not that the Board set a deadline, but that this deadline came abruptly.
I recall that we had a lot of time spent (wasted, IMHO) trying to second guess what the Board would have done in terms of setting a time limit, what the default decision of the Board would be in case we do not get a consensus, and other things that were not directly aiming at reaching a consensus position.
I believe that the path should be clear and known in advance. The Board has all the rights to set a (reasonable) deadline in advance, it helps the planning of the WG. Of course, the deadline can be extended if needed and if reasonably motivated (that happened for VI as well). What is disruptive is the statement: “OK guys, we have enough, you have one more week and that’s it”.
Another element that is creating problems is that it is not clear what happens in case of failure to reach consensus. As Alan (if I am not mistaken) points out, there are different schools of thought on the Board on whether the Board will have to make a decision, or whether the ball should be punted to GNSO for another round.
Personally, I favour the former. The ball can go back to GNSO Council only if there is legitimate and motivated reason to believe that the PDP was done badly and that another WG, maybe with a different charter, can address the matter differently and have more chances to solve the issue in a satisfactory way (incidentally, it should not be the Board to decide this, but the Name Council). But if it is to have another run with the same people about the same issue, it will be a loss of time. Not only, it will give the temptation to the Name Council to solve the matter with a vote, absent a PDP, which will be a very bad case. If there is no consensus, the only authority that can make a decision is the Board.
I am aware that this will raise some issues: some folks, when they see that the PDP is going in a direction that does not suits their wishes, could decide to stall the PDP and lobby the Board instead. This is a risk that we must be able to take. Lobbying the Board has always happened and will always happen, but in time we will be able to grow in the “consensus of the stakeholders” cultural approach to minimize this risk. After all, the very reason for ICANN to exist is the multi-stakeholder model, and the consensus of the stakeholders as legitimation for the decisions, so we do not have other choice than to go ahead on this path.
In summary:
- clear timeframe set in advance, extendable if motivated need exists (i.e.: “we are getting there, we just need more time”)
- if closure with no consensus ball back to Name Council to evaluate results
- if no reason to believe that another run will solve the issues, ball to the Board who has the final decision.
Cheers,
Roberto
Da: Mike O'Connor [ mailto:mike@haven2.com ]
Inviato: venerdì 9 agosto 2013 01:51
A: Alan Greenberg
Cc: Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'; rickert@anwaelte.de; 'Chuck Gomes'; jbladel@godaddy.com; 'Paul Diaz'; jeff.neuman@neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria'; 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute'
Oggetto: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
i'm sorry to hear that my VI Senior co-chair Roberto won't be able to make the call. is there any way to add some options so that he can attend?
several points to amplify about "complicated" WGs:
-- in my view it would be helpful if they were chartered with that "complicated" aspect in mind (i.e. more resources, healthy dose of senior participants, aggressive recruiting, facilitation/mediation options available, etc.). we may want to think about the upcoming Policy and Implementation Working Group in that light.
-- i agree with Roberto (as i always do) -- in VI, we made a lot of progress in a face-to-face session facilitated by an amateur (me). i take the blame for losing a whole lot of ground in a face-to-face meeting later in the week where we were all tired and shouldn't have been meeting. better-planned sessions, held outside of the stressful week of an ICANN meeting, planned and led by somebody who knew what they were doing, might have captured a consensus.
-- i think using Board ultimatums is probably not the best way to motivate WGs, especially if those rules of engagement are fluid. neither the STI nor the GNSO re-org were working-groups, so i didn't participate and don't have a direct comment. but i've participated in a bunch of working groups and none of them have benefited by being tinkered with by the Board. the latest example is the cross-AC/SO DNS Security and Stability Analysis working group. Olivier can fill you in on the gory details.
-- one of the pieces that was never completed in the new GNSO PDP was a self-assessment cycle for WGs as they are wrapping up. the Standing Committee on Improvements is near the end of developing that instrument and is planning to test it very soon. i think the results of those questionnaires will be a big help to other WG chairs, and the questions we ask will also give chairs a big hint on what they should (and shouldn't) be doing. here's a link to the draft -- it's likely to change a bit once we've run it through a test cycle:
http://scitestwg.questionpro.com/
On Aug 8, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@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 don’t reach consensus” – I’ll elaborate in a follow up post on why this is important
· On “complicated” WGs, resources are necessary, still quoting the VI experience, much progress has been made in a F2F meeting
· As part of the GNSO Review, we stated that some resources should be made available for the WG Chairs – this is important when the WG is “complicated” – I am sure that in the final report of the GNSO Review WG we mentioned training for the Chairpersons, use of facilitators, and so on
· To the best of my knowledge, there are “lessons learned” sessions, but there has never been an effort to share experiences among WG Chairs or record for the upcoming WGs what went OK and what went wrong in previous WGs, successful tricks used, approaches that brought deadlocks, a.s.o. – much is left to the “oral tradition” and to the memory of the WG members
· For the “certain stakeholders have not been able to adequately participate” issue, I have my own opinions, it is also linked with the “chair warming” issue – since this comment is going to be public, I will wait until my mind is fresh and I will be able to articulate my thoughts in a politically correct way
Please be aware that I have not been active in the PDP process for more than one year, and therefore I might have raised points that are currently incorrect or superseded by events.
Best regards,
Roberto
Da: Alice Jansen [ mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org]
Inviato: mercoledì 7 agosto 2013 15:04
A: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; rickert@anwaelte.de; mike@haven2.com; Chuck Gomes; jbladel@godaddy.com; Paul Diaz; roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com; jeff.neuman@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 (14–15–16 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 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: alice.jansen@icann.org
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)