From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>, 'Alan Greenberg' <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen@icann.org>, "'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'" <michele@blacknight.com>, "rickert@anwaelte.de" <rickert@anwaelte.de>, "mike@haven2.com" <mike@haven2.com>, "jbladel@godaddy.com" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, 'Paul Diaz' <pdiaz@pir.org>, "jeff.neuman@neustar.biz" <jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>, 'Avri Doria' <avri@ella.com> CC: '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: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 Thread-Topic: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 Thread-Index: Ac6TbpCxEv+qsjhaT6u4cVGKV6uMpQBNpv0AAAIPNAAASphvAAABMvyg Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:11:40 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US

Regarding F2F meetings, it is helpful to recall that there were several F2F meetings held in the New gTLD PDP that I believe were very productive. In especially complicated PDPs, I think that F2F meetings can be quite helpful but I don’t think that it is as necessary in less difficult PDPs.

Chuck

From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 6:42 AM To: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'; rickert@anwaelte.de; mike@haven2.com; Gomes, Chuck; jbladel@godaddy.com; 'Paul Diaz'; jeff.neuman@neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria' Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute' Subject: R: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2

I realize now that I did not answer the last question: Without a threat hanging over heads, can the process work? Even as Roberto suggests, with F2F meeting and professional facilitation. I do not have the perfect answer, but I can say a couple of things. As I commented before, the ultimate decision has to come from the Board, and if the WG does not come to a conclusion within the (clearly set in advance, not decided abruptly) time frame, the Board has free hands in the decision. The threat is, in this case, that it is not known in advance what the Board would decide. This means that it would be ethically incorrect for Directors to speak with third parties about matters on which a PDP is ongoing, to avoid trumping the PDP itself. The second point is a bit more complicated. Having been the co-chair of VI-WG I might be biased, but I strongly believe that it was not a lost cause to come to a more meaningful consensus than the one we have reached. The strategy that Mikey and myself had, once it was clear that we were starting running in circles without much progress, was on one hand to “surprise” the WG by trying to propose views of the problem from a different angle (some remember attempts that were funny, but serious, like the atoms-molecules) and on the other hand logging the minimum common consensus, i.e. what we could present in a report as a step forward, although minimal. I hoped that, once participants could get out from a paradigm, some progress could be achieved, and on the other hand that, if minimum result was achieved, that we could think of a second run to try to get a refinement. ICANN has used professional facilitators in several occasions during meetings, so it should not be a problem to have this kind of support. I do remember the energy and the participation when we met F2F. There is also another element that has to be taken into account (and I speak from my experience of former Chair of the DNSO-GA): when people are meeting in person, they do not have the reactions that produce, for instance, inflammatory emails: there are less chances to be misunderstood, the body language helps completing the information flow, people that are normally shy can say a few words in small groups bringing new ideas, … Yes, I strongly believe that with more F2F and professional facilitation we would have had substantial progress. Cheers, R.

Da: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Inviato: venerdì 9 agosto 2013 01:06 A: Roberto Gaetano; 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'; <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert@anwaelte.de; <mailto:mike@haven2.com>mike@haven2.com; 'Chuck Gomes'; <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel@godaddy.com; 'Paul Diaz'; <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman@neustar.biz; 'Avri Doria' Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute' Oggetto: Re: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2

Roberto, and Mikey and others,

A question.

On an issue such as VI, where both emotions and investments are heavy, what is the incentive for participants to make concessions and try to find some middle ground.

Although it didn't work, perhaps as Mikey identified due to timing and changing time-lines, in the past the incentive has been a Board ultimatum that a compromise be found by a certain date or else, with or else being that the Board will decide and you may not like what they do. It worked with the STI, and also with the GNSO re-org (although perhaps with a questionable outcome in that case).

Some Board members have been prepared to do that as they eventually did with VI, but others have said that the only such decisions that the Board should make should be do-no-harm interim decisions and punt back to the GNSO as it has done with the IDO/INGO protection.

Without a threat hanging over heads, can the process work? Even as Roberto suggests, with F2F meeting and professional facilitation.

Alan

At 08/08/2013 06:07 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote: Sorry, I will be unable to make the 14 August call, I will be available only in the late evening (CET) that is not one of the option offered. However, I would like to contribute to the discussion prior to the call. I have no problem in having my comments posted publicly. I will articulate a better contribution tomorrow, but for the time being I would like to make the following points: · Agree with Mikey on incentivating more participation by new people · The charter has to be defined clearly, but not only – it has to be very clear what will be the process after the conclusion of the WG (in the VI-WG we spent hours to discuss “what will happen next if we 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; <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>rickert@anwaelte.de; <mailto:mike@haven2.com>mike@haven2.com; Chuck Gomes; <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel@godaddy.com; Paul Diaz; <mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com; <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>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>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