From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> To: 'Alan Greenberg' <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> CC: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>, 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>, "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 Thread-Topic: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 Thread-Index: AQHOlJIjWjS0qj0k+EWGpSOx5GhqaJmMF7hzgABgj4CAAMa+AP//xzJfgAAANGA= Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 15:50:31 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US
Alan,
Although putting a chart together is interesting, I would encourage us to not fall back on that. Many SGs have voted in favor of PDPs because they knew that the vote would pass the threshold regardless of how they voted and they did not want to look bad dissenting knowing that the PDP would be initiated anyway.
I can tell you first hand that the RySG in at least 2 PDPs in the last 2 years voted in favor of certain PDPs because they knew it would pass because of the low thresholds and politically they did not want to look bad or be ostracized.
In my opinion, there is a problem with that kind of system.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 11:41 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Neuman, Jeff; Mike O'Connor Cc: Roberto Gaetano; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon - Blacknight; rickert@anwaelte.de; jbladel@godaddy.com; Paul Diaz; Avri Doria; Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute Subject: RE: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
Chuck, for an issue that is within the scope of the GNSO, the threshold is 1/3 or each house or 2/3 of one house. That ensures that one or both contracted parties (who may be impacted by the PDP results) cannot veto it. It would be interesting to hear alternatives that still preserve the no-veto concept.
That notwithstanding, Marika, have we ever put together a chart of what the voting records really were to initiate PDPs over the last several years?
Alan
At 09/08/2013 11:10 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Regardless of differing personal opinions regarding the PEDNR PDP, Jeff raises an important question as to whether the threshold for initiating a PDP is too low. I understand the complications in answering that question, but it is definitely a valid one to ask.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 11:19 PM To: Neuman, Jeff; Mike O'Connor Cc: Roberto Gaetano; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon - Blacknight; rickert@anwaelte.de; Gomes, Chuck; jbladel@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.