Thanks James. Would it be oka= y to modify as follows?

=93In practical term= s, we understand that the average tim= e to complete a PDP can be a barrier to participation = and can undermine the ICANN model. The multi-year effort to pa= rticipate in a PDP is a commitment that individuals often can=92t afford an= d commercial organizations cannot justify. And the anticipated elapsed= time makes the PDP an unattractive mechanism for addressing urgent or controversial matters, and provides incentives fo= r parties to escalate these immediately to other structures, such as the Bo= ard or GAC. So we are supportive of efforts to make PDPs more= time effective.=94

=93At the same time, as with our comments on item 10= .4 below, we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determ= ine the performance of the GNSO. . . =94

Chuck

From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 2:29 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell; Mike O'Connor
Cc: council@gnso.icann.org=
Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

Hi Chuck:

Well, I started to mark up the text, but qui= ckly realized that the entire paragraph focused solely on the dangers of fo= cusing exclusively on elapsed PDP time.

Perhaps a clean way to salvage this section = would be to include an introductory sentence or two that captures my concer= ns below. How about we prepend something like this to the section:

=93In practical terms, the average time to c= omplete a PDP represents a barrier to participation and undermines the ICAN= N model. The multi-year effort to participate in a PDP is a commitment that individuals often can=92t afford and commerc= ial organizations cannot justify. And the anticipate elapsed time mak= es the PDP an unattractive mechanism for addressing urgent or controversial= matters, and provides incentives for parties to escalate these immediately to other structures, such as the Board or GA= C."

Thoughts?

From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 13:07
To: James Bladel <jbladel@= godaddy.com>, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>
Cc: "council@gnso.ica= nn.org" <council@gnso= .icann.org>
Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

James,

It sounds like you are in agreement= with the sentiments you flagged but would add some to them. In my re= ading of the comments I understand them to be saying that PDP measurement shouldn=92t focus so much on time that qual= ity is sacrificed and you seem to say the same thing, i.e., =93the future of the BU/MSM is entirely dependent upon a PDP that is timely =97and=96 results in quality outcomes= =94. If I am correct, how would you change the current wording?

Chuck

From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso= .icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:58 PM
To: Maria Farrell; Mike O'Connor
Cc: council@gnso.icann.org=
Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

I support this version of the draft, except = for the sentiments contained in the section regarding making the PDP more t= ime effective.

While I don=92t dispute that elapsed time fo= r a PDP is only one (among several) measure of the overall quality of the p= rocess, I strongly believe that in the =93real world,=94 the slow pace of the PDP is a threat to the PDP, the GNS= O and even the ICANN model itself.

This isn=92t just alarmist thinking on my pa= rt =97 the multi-year average TTL for a PDP represents a significant = barrier to wider participation from volunteers (who can=92t afford the commitment) and commercial organizations (who cann= ot justify it). It also provides a clear incentive for governments and othe= r interests to seek faster paths to advance their agendas through ICANN, en= suring that urgent or controversial topics will immediately escalate to a Board/GAC interaction.

In my opinion, the future of the BU/MSM is e= ntirely dependent upon a PDP that is timely =97and=96 results in quality ou= tcomes.

Thanks=97=

From: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 10:41
To: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2= .com>
Cc: "council@gnso.ica= nn.org" <council@gnso= .icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

Hi Mikey,

These changes= look great to me, thanks a million.

Does anyone e= lse plan to chip in?

We have an agenda item on this on Thursday's= meeting, and a submission deadline on Friday.

All the best, Maria

On 10 December 2013 16:31, Mike O'Connor <= ;mike@haven2.com&g= t; wrote:

hi Maria,

here's a redline markup for you all to take = a look at. i love your draft and don't disagree with anything in it. = i'm trying to amplify and refine. feel free to back out anything that puts you on edge.

mikey

On Dec 9, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Maria Farrell &l= t;maria.farrel= l@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear all,

Here are some= draft comments on the ATRT2 recommendations re. the GNSO.

Mikey and Dav= id - I know you two kindly volunteered to help out with this. Can you parti= cularly take a look?

Also, there's= a need for a para or bullet point list summarising relevant work the GNSO = is already doing, e.g. the SCI? or Staff paper on improving the PDP? I'm drawing a blank on the other initiatives. = Can someone please rustle up a list of them?

This needs to= be submitted by the 12th, so comments please ASAP.

All the best,= Maria

Dear members of the Acountability and Transparency Review Team (= 2),

The GNSO Council thanks you for the outcome-oriented analysis an= d recommendations in the ATRT2 Draft Recommendations of 21 November, 2013. = We particularly appreciate the time and care that went into these recommendations, the commissioning of useful= research and, especially, the efforts made by the ATRT2 and its leadership= to promote awareness and dialogue about the recommendations at the Buenos = Aires meeting.

The Council=92s input focuses on recommendations regarding the G= NSO PDP. Broadly, we strongly support the call for broader and more active = working group participation and earlier involvement of the GAC, and will work hard to implement final recommendati= ons on these issues.

New recommendations arising from issues not addressed by ATRT= 1 Recommendations<= /p>

10.1 on developing funded options = for professional facilitators to help GNSO PDP Working Groups

While some Councilors supported this suggestion, others were con= cerned that facilitators may not always be appropriate in the multi-stakeho= lder model. Broadly, we believe this is an option that could be considered in the context of the ATRT2=92s reco= mmendation to develop explicit guidelines for when to use facilitators. Agr= eement should be elicited by Working Group participants to use facilitators= on a case by case basis, and with a clear understanding of facilitators=92 roles.

10.1 on face to face meetings duri= ng GNSO PDPs

We support this recommendation and the development of guidelines= for when F2F meetings may be required and justified. However, we do note t= hat there is a variety of ability amongst Working Group participants to travel to F2F meetings. Many volunte= ers cannot leave work or family to do so, for example. We suggest that if i= ntercessional F2F meetings are used more often that ICANN consider adopting= the IETF approach that agreements reached during F2F meetings are then subject to consideration by mailing l= ist members.

10.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to= make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective

As with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned that s= peed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO. = There is not one but three fundamental ways to judge PDP performance: time, participativeness and agreement. Time= measures only how long it took to get to a policy; the second two are effe= ctively proxy measures for its quality. Stressing too much the most obvious= performance variable could have the unintentional consequence of sacrificing quality. Further, increasing = the pressure of time can result in forced compromises that quickly fall apa= rt or result in participants end-running to the Board, a phenomenon the rep= ort identifies. This undermines the legitimacy of the whole process.

We suggest this recommendation be revised to stress more that = =91time-effective=92 encompasses efficient use of participants=92 time =96 = including preparation for and chairing of calls and follow-up activities, etc. =96 rather than focusing on a single, quant= ifiable metric that can draw attention away from other qualities.

10.2 on the GAC, with the GNSO, developing ways to input to P= DP Working Groups<= /p>

We strongly support this recommendation and are eager to work wi= th the GAC on ways to implement it.

10.3 on the Board and GNSO chartering a strategic initiative = to broaden participation in GNSO PDPs

We broadly support this recommendation and welcomed the detailed= quantitative analysis provided in support of the need to broaden participa= tion. We do also note staff=92s observation that in some cases input to public comments may appear to be from, for exa= mple, the US but has been submitted by a US-based individual on behalf of a= peak organization that consulted more widely.

Nonetheless, there is clearly a need to both broaden and deepen = participation. Some of our councilors suggest that as well as outreach to i= ncrease participation from outside of ICANN, we should also do =91in reach=92 to deepen participation by indi= viduals already involved in ICANN but who have never participated in a Work= ing Group. We ask that the ATRT2 may consider this suggestion.

10.4 on the Board stating a process for setting gTLD policies= when the GNSO =91cannot come to closure on a specific issue within a speci= fied time-frame=92.

We share the concerns stated by others that the couching of this= recommendation may unwittingly undermine the multi-stakeholder model in IC= ANN. Policy-making can take longer than is predictable or desirable, but nonetheless be effective in its deli= berativeness, output and degree of support. This recommendation seems to pe= rpetuate a belief that the GNSO =96 the engine of gTLD policy development a= nd the only part of ICANN driven by carefully balanced stakeholder decision-making =96 is too slow and argumen= tative. That belief can drive some ICANN participants to go around the GNSO= and straight to the Board, undermining the multi-stakeholder process and I= CANN=92s raison d=92etre. While Board deadlines can sometimes help overcome i= ntractable differences, it=92s not clear how to ensure constructive negotia= tion within the PDP without later recourse to the Board or GAC.

This recommendation seems to contradict the research report find= ing that there is both a conflict but ultimately a =91sweet spot=92 to be f= ound between policy-making being sufficiently participatory and speedy. We suggest that this recommendation be revised t= o help the GNSO find that sweet spot =96 which will change from one issue t= o the next and is not a =91one size fits all=92 amount of pre-specified tim= e. For example, the recommendation could be re-drafted to suggest the Board interact formally or informally with th= e GNSO to find out more about PDPs that appear to be going too slowly; to f= ind out if that is indeed the case, and to constructively offer advice or e= ncouragement to assist.

Recommendation 10.4 also says the Board should note under what c= onditions it believes it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board a= cceptance. We support this part of the recommendation. <= /p>

Recommendation 10.4 also says there should be an additional step= in the PDP Comment Process that allows those whose comments have been synt= hesized improperly to request changes. We support this recommendation, while noting it will add some time to the = process. Perhaps it could be implemented on an =91if/then=92 basis, i.e. in= serting an opportunity for commenters to raise their initial concerns to tr= igger taking the additional step of requesting changes to the summary. However, we also suggest replacing the = term =91improperly=92 with =91incorrectly=92 or =91wrongly=92, as the word = =91improper=92 has connotations of wrongdoing rather than inaccuracy, which= don=92t seem relevant here.

Summary of work the GNSO is already doing

=85<= /p>

4. = ; Summarise if appropriate<= o:p>

http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13= -en.pdf

<ATRT2 draft GNSO Council response.docx&g= t;

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: = www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn,= etc.)