Apologies, The input we had was from Maria (not Marika as below) but the question remains: Do we provide written input to the ATRT2? If so; (a) it needs to be done by 13 Dec and (b) is Maria in a position to hold the pen? Thanks, Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 02 December 2013 17:47 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] ATRT2 summary All, We used this useful input from Marika to provide input to the ATRT2 in Buenos Aires. I recall that we provided some well thought out and apparently helpful input in relation to the PDP and our role in managing policy development within the GNSO. In addition we touched on it during the wrap-up session on Thursday. We have to decide and act quickly on whether or not to provide written input by close of the reply period on 13 December 2013. Thereafter they aim to produce the final report by 31 December 2013. Any comments or input on this welcome. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: 20 November 2013 12:21 To: 'Maria Farrell'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] ATRT2 summary Many thanks Maria, All, please note that we are meeting with the ATRT2 in our second meeting GNSO Council meeting today. First we seat the new council, second we elect the chair. Then we meet with the ATRT. Exiting councillors WELCOME to participate. It’s an open / public meeting. Jonathan From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com] Sent: 20 November 2013 09:09 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] ATRT2 summary Dear fellow councilors, With apologies for the time it's taken me to send this last part, here is a summary of the ATRT2 report on the GNSO PDP. (I'm afraid I ran out of time to summarise the rest of the report.) I hope this is useful. Full text of the report is here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13-... And the GNSO PDP part starts on page 59 of the report. All the best, Maria ATRT2 Report – section on GNSO PDP The problem: GNSO PDP is weak when it comes to resolving strong views and financial interests. Background research Staff paper on improving the PDP is in the works Community input Chairs and WG veterans stress need for F2F meetings, professional facilitators, Board involvement and for people were both for and against the Board issuing threats and deadlines. Interconnect Report Findings PDPs mostly done by North Americans and Europeans Most active participants are paid to be there Many participants dissatisfied with process, time it takes and feel it’s not worth while – one time only WG participation is typical Culturally, PDP and WG process very Western culturally and English language based ATRT2 Findings Growing sense that professional facilitators are needed to help resolve difficult issues, although it may not suffice Current model is based on email and conference calls, but F2F is more effective Board deadlines sometimes used to overcome intractable differences, but it’s not clear how to ensure people negotiate within PDP in good faith. Board is part of the problem: Board deadlined PDPs don’t always create good policy. Or Board says it wants a policy and decides its own response in the meantime, or Board nullifies outcomes of a PDP. This creates distrust that some in the PDP are not committed to it and will undermine outcome by lobbying Board or GAC. ATRT2 Draft New Recommendations ICANN should: Fund facilitators and draft guidelines for when they can be used Provide funding for more F2F meetings Work with community to make PDP faster, to attract more people The GAC should: With the GNSO, find ways to input to WGs and to GNSO Council on draft PDP reports The Board and GNSO should: Start an initiative to increase participation from outside NA/Europe, non-English speaking, other cultures, people not funded by industry. Players Also: The Board should set procedures for what to do when the GNSO cannot come to a decision within the time, and state “under what conditions the Board believes it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board acceptance”. A step should be added to the PDP process where those unhappy with staff comment summary can respond.