Any comment on to what extent other ATRT members feel I am on-target, or off-base would be welcome. Alan
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 11:39:12 -0400 To: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 Cc: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>, "rickert@anwaelte.de" <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com>, "jbladel@godaddy.com" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz@pir.org>, "roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com" <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>, "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>
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@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@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.)