From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> To: 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen@icann.org>, 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <michele@blacknight.com>, <rickert@anwaelte.de>, <mike@haven2.com>, "'Chuck Gomes'" <cgomes@verisign.com>, <jbladel@godaddy.com>, 'Paul Diaz' <pdiaz@pir.org>, <jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>, 'Avri Doria' <avri@ella.com>, 'Alan Greenberg' <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> 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: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 16:12:59 +0200 Thread-Index: AQIHQzpoViB7WhzGdQkLWv+WPUgapQHgC1jsmQ4KK8A=

After the previous discussion, I need to elaborate only on these points: · Agree with Mikey on incentivating more participation by new people · 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

The first and last points are connected, so let me start with the easy one, the lessons learned. As far as I know, but I might be wrong, while a post mortem session is generally held at the end of a WG, there is little coordination among WGs, except for the synthesis made in the Name Council. It might be useful to have cross-WG sessions, like a meeting of the WG Chairs, past, present, and candidate future, to share experiences and tricks. This can be done as an ad-hoc session every ICANN meeting, for instance. If the suggestion of a facilitator is accepted, the facilitator(s) should participate to the session, to understand what are the main issues and problems that are encountered in running WGs. Of course, the sessions shall be open, so that we can be transparent about the issues and also take the benefit of contributions by the audience. Maybe we could try to assess the PDP taking a frame of reference, like for instance the Capability Maturity Model (CMM or CMMI) and check which are the process areas that need more attention. Incidentally, CMMI certification for the policy development process could be an excellent marketing tool.

About participation, I agree with Mikey that we should incentivate new people. However, maybe we should first analyse the composition of the WGs and check whether there are any stakeholder groups (in the broad sense) that are insufficiently represented (or insufficiently active, if we take the point about the “chair warming” issue). While it is always good to have a new generation of participants, before studying incentives to ensure participation of new people we should check whether we have chronic absence of some voices, and rectify this problem first. I would like also to be clear about the “chair warming”: I am not at all in favour of people volounteering just to add a line on the CV or, worse, to get a free ticket to some meeting. However, there are situations in which we need to accept people in an observer role, i.e. people who will listen but might not contribute much. Not everybody has the same approach. Not everybody is ready to jump into an overheated arena to express an opinion that might be heavily criticized. Last but not least, every participant to a WG representing a component of the ICANN multi-stakeholder world carries the responsibility of representing this component. And his/her behavior will “naturally” contribute to the opinion that the other folks will have about that component. So, I assume that the part of the ICANN organization, either a constituency, a stakeholder group, an advisory committee, or other, will be somewhat (although indirectly) responsible of the behavior of that individual, and I assume will take a corrective action.

Cheers, Roberto

Da: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] Inviato: venerdì 9 agosto 2013 00:07 A: 'Alice Jansen'; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight'; 'rickert@anwaelte.de'; 'mike@haven2.com'; 'Chuck Gomes'; 'jbladel@godaddy.com'; 'Paul Diaz'; 'jeff.neuman@neustar.biz'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Alan Greenberg' Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Brian Cute' Oggetto: R: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2

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>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