RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not being prescriptive about. The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We (the GNSO and community) are making good progress toward coming up with methodologies which could improve the policy development process, but many of them will require funding (whether for services, travel or additional ICANN staff). What we are looking for is a commitment to put money into the process so that some of these pipe-dreams can become a reality. Alan At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Alan. Regarding the recommendations about using facilitators, did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN staff, community volunteers trained by ICANN or paid service providers? I understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than one the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the recommendation being discussed.
First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess. This recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in the body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my fingers crossed) be far more cohesive.
The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body of the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve the Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the final recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy processes (not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does allow for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider deliberations as well.
On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section was effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped for) by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are very welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more effectively, and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted, we just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up to speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of getting more people involved and not boring those who already understand the basic issues.
The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted in Buenos Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this. The current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional services to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for when such options may be invoked. Such services could include training to enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation, mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being developed, it will likely be further revised.
The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and has been incorporated.
The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you to get them submitted prior to the deadline.
As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and Implementation WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what we are currently calling "implementation", it could be referred back to the GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways of coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably delay the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we are talking about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.
Alan
Thanks Alan. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not being prescriptive about. The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We (the GNSO and community) are making good progress toward coming up with methodologies which could improve the policy development process, but many of them will require funding (whether for services, travel or additional ICANN staff). What we are looking for is a commitment to put money into the process so that some of these pipe-dreams can become a reality. Alan At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Alan. Regarding the recommendations about using facilitators, did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN staff, community volunteers trained by ICANN or paid service providers? I understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than one the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the recommendation being discussed.
First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess. This recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in the body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my fingers crossed) be far more cohesive.
The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body of the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve the Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the final recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy processes (not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does allow for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider deliberations as well.
On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section was effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped for) by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are very welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more effectively, and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted, we just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up to speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of getting more people involved and not boring those who already understand the basic issues.
The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted in Buenos Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this. The current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional services to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for when such options may be invoked. Such services could include training to enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation, mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being developed, it will likely be further revised.
The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and has been incorporated.
The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you to get them submitted prior to the deadline.
As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and Implementation WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what we are currently calling "implementation", it could be referred back to the GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways of coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably delay the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we are talking about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.
Alan
Hi all, Here's a revised draft response to the ATRT2 recommendations. I've incorporated all the comments and changed the focus re time-effectiveness to something I hope is closer to our area of agreement. If there are more comments between now and the deadline of 23.50 UTC tonight, I'll work them in tomorrow. It would be helpful if you can make comments on the new draft, V.3, but if you're already knee-deep in V.2, then don't worry; just send comments on that one instead. Track changes and clean versions attached. Best, m On 11 December 2013 17:02, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Alan.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not being prescriptive about.
The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We (the GNSO and community) are making good progress toward coming up with methodologies which could improve the policy development process, but many of them will require funding (whether for services, travel or additional ICANN staff). What we are looking for is a commitment to put money into the process so that some of these pipe-dreams can become a reality.
Alan
At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Alan. Regarding the recommendations about using facilitators, did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN staff, community volunteers trained by ICANN or paid service providers? I understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than one the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the recommendation being discussed.
First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess. This recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in the body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my fingers crossed) be far more cohesive.
The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body of the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve the Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the final recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy processes (not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does allow for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider deliberations as well.
On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section was effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped for) by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are very welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more effectively, and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted, we just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up to speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of getting more people involved and not boring those who already understand the basic issues.
The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted in Buenos Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this. The current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional services to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for when such options may be invoked. Such services could include training to enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation, mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being developed, it will likely be further revised.
The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and has been incorporated.
The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you to get them submitted prior to the deadline.
As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and Implementation WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what we are currently calling "implementation", it could be referred back to the GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways of coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably delay the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we are talking about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.
Alan
Thanks Maria. Regarding '13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective': * I don't agree with this statement in the second paragraph: "So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness is currently the most pressing." I don't think it is the most pressing criterion but I do believe that is one of several that must be focused on. I would be much more comfortable if we changed the sentence to something like this: "So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness needs to be addressed." * Along the same line, I would change the last paragraph as follows: "Additionally we suggest that while one concern is time-effectiveness and the fact that the PDPs simply takes too take a lot of time long, reference might be also made in your recommendations to other, more qualitative measures of the effectiveness of policy-making; deliberativeness, participation and support." In my opinion, it is critical to focus on all the criteria together rather than isolating one as the most important. As our other comments on this suggest, that risks sacrificing qualitative criteria. Do we want to compromise the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model to make PDPs more time efficient? I don't think so. I believe what we want to do is to find ways to improve time-effectiveness while still making sure that PDPs are bottom-up and multi-stakeholder. For example, the qualitative criteria of participation and support are areas where improvements could be made to improve time-effectiveness. Finally, I think that categorizing time-effectiveness as the most pressing criterion is counter to what we say later in our comments: "we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO". Chuck From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:26 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Hi all, Here's a revised draft response to the ATRT2 recommendations. I've incorporated all the comments and changed the focus re time-effectiveness to something I hope is closer to our area of agreement. If there are more comments between now and the deadline of 23.50 UTC tonight, I'll work them in tomorrow. It would be helpful if you can make comments on the new draft, V.3, but if you're already knee-deep in V.2, then don't worry; just send comments on that one instead. Track changes and clean versions attached. Best, m On 11 December 2013 17:02, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Thanks Alan. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not being prescriptive about. The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We (the GNSO and community) are making good progress toward coming up with methodologies which could improve the policy development process, but many of them will require funding (whether for services, travel or additional ICANN staff). What we are looking for is a commitment to put money into the process so that some of these pipe-dreams can become a reality. Alan At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Alan. Regarding the recommendations about using facilitators, did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN staff, community volunteers trained by ICANN or paid service providers? I understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than one the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the recommendation being discussed.
First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess. This recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in the body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my fingers crossed) be far more cohesive.
The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body of the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve the Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the final recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy processes (not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does allow for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider deliberations as well.
On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section was effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped for) by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are very welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more effectively, and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted, we just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up to speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of getting more people involved and not boring those who already understand the basic issues.
The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted in Buenos Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this. The current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional services to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for when such options may be invoked. Such services could include training to enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation, mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being developed, it will likely be further revised.
The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and has been incorporated.
The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you to get them submitted prior to the deadline.
As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and Implementation WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what we are currently calling "implementation", it could be referred back to the GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways of coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably delay the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we are talking about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.
Alan
i agree with Chuck, AND i agree with James (the main source of the push to be timely). i think the key is balance. that "sweet spot" that is in the ICC report. so i support Chuck's rewording, and hope that James will too. we all share the desire to get these things done in a timely way (and we WILL need to figure out something faster to meet the demands that are likely to fall out of Policy and Implementation). sorry for terseness, walking out the door for a few hours of sub-zero driving. mikey On Dec 11, 2013, at 12:02 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Maria.
Regarding ‘13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective’: · I don’t agree with this statement in the second paragraph: “So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness is currently the most pressing.” I don’t think it is the most pressing criterion but I do believe that is one of several that must be focused on. I would be much more comfortable if we changed the sentence to something like this: “So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness needs to be addressed.” · Along the same line, I would change the last paragraph as follows: “Additionally we suggest that while one concern is time-effectiveness and the fact that the PDPs simply takes too take a lot of time long, reference might be also made in your recommendations to other, more qualitative measures of the effectiveness of policy-making; deliberativeness, participation and support.” In my opinion, it is critical to focus on all the criteria together rather than isolating one as the most important. As our other comments on this suggest, that risks sacrificing qualitative criteria. Do we want to compromise the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model to make PDPs more time efficient? I don’t think so. I believe what we want to do is to find ways to improve time-effectiveness while still making sure that PDPs are bottom-up and multi-stakeholder. For example, the qualitative criteria of participation and support are areas where improvements could be made to improve time-effectiveness. Finally, I think that categorizing time-effectiveness as the most pressing criterion is counter to what we say later in our comments: “we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO”.
Chuck
From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:26 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Hi all,
Here's a revised draft response to the ATRT2 recommendations. I've incorporated all the comments and changed the focus re time-effectiveness to something I hope is closer to our area of agreement.
If there are more comments between now and the deadline of 23.50 UTC tonight, I'll work them in tomorrow.
It would be helpful if you can make comments on the new draft, V.3, but if you're already knee-deep in V.2, then don't worry; just send comments on that one instead.
Track changes and clean versions attached.
Best, m
On 11 December 2013 17:02, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Thanks Alan.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not being prescriptive about.
The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We (the GNSO and community) are making good progress toward coming up with methodologies which could improve the policy development process, but many of them will require funding (whether for services, travel or additional ICANN staff). What we are looking for is a commitment to put money into the process so that some of these pipe-dreams can become a reality.
Alan
At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Alan. Regarding the recommendations about using facilitators, did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN staff, community volunteers trained by ICANN or paid service providers? I understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than one the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the recommendation being discussed.
First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess. This recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in the body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my fingers crossed) be far more cohesive.
The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body of the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve the Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the final recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy processes (not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does allow for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider deliberations as well.
On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section was effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped for) by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are very welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more effectively, and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted, we just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up to speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of getting more people involved and not boring those who already understand the basic issues.
The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted in Buenos Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this. The current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional services to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for when such options may be invoked. Such services could include training to enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation, mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being developed, it will likely be further revised.
The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and has been incorporated.
The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you to get them submitted prior to the deadline.
As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and Implementation WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what we are currently calling "implementation", it could be referred back to the GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways of coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably delay the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we are talking about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.
Alan
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Thanks, both - I over-compensated in the other direction. James, what do you think? You were pretty concerned about the time issue, so how does Chuck's suggestion above read to you? Maria On 11 December 2013 18:09, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
i agree with Chuck,
AND i agree with James (the main source of the push to be timely). i think the key is balance. that "sweet spot" that is in the ICC report. so i support Chuck's rewording, and hope that James will too. we all share the desire to get these things done in a timely way (and we WILL need to figure out something faster to meet the demands that are likely to fall out of Policy and Implementation).
sorry for terseness, walking out the door for a few hours of sub-zero driving.
mikey
On Dec 11, 2013, at 12:02 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Maria.
Regarding ‘*13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective*’: · I don’t agree with this statement in the second paragraph: “So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness is currently the most pressing.” I don’t think it is the most pressing criterion but I do believe that is one of several that must be focused on. I would be much more comfortable if we changed the sentence to something like this: “So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness needs to be addressed.” · Along the same line, I would change the last paragraph as follows: “Additionally we suggest that while one concern is time-effectiveness and the fact that the PDPs simply takes too take a lot of time long, reference might be also made in your recommendations to other, more qualitative measures of the effectiveness of policy-making; deliberativeness, participation and support.” In my opinion, it is critical to focus on all the criteria together rather than isolating one as the most important. As our other comments on this suggest, that risks sacrificing qualitative criteria. Do we want to compromise the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model to make PDPs more time efficient? I don’t think so. I believe what we want to do is to find ways to improve time-effectiveness while still making sure that PDPs are bottom-up and multi-stakeholder. For example, the qualitative criteria of participation and support are areas where improvements could be made to improve time-effectiveness. Finally, I think that categorizing time-effectiveness as the most pressing criterion is counter to what we say later in our comments: “we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO”.
Chuck
*From:* Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:26 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Hi all,
Here's a revised draft response to the ATRT2 recommendations. I've incorporated all the comments and changed the focus re time-effectiveness to something I hope is closer to our area of agreement.
If there are more comments between now and the deadline of 23.50 UTC tonight, I'll work them in tomorrow.
It would be helpful if you can make comments on the new draft, V.3, but if you're already knee-deep in V.2, then don't worry; just send comments on that one instead.
Track changes and clean versions attached. Best, m
On 11 December 2013 17:02, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Thanks Alan.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not being prescriptive about.
The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We (the GNSO and community) are making good progress toward coming up with methodologies which could improve the policy development process, but many of them will require funding (whether for services, travel or additional ICANN staff). What we are looking for is a commitment to put money into the process so that some of these pipe-dreams can become a reality.
Alan
At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Alan. Regarding the recommendations about using facilitators, did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN staff, community volunteers trained by ICANN or paid service providers? I understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than one the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the recommendation being discussed.
First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess. This recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in the body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my fingers crossed) be far more cohesive.
The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body of the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve the Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the final recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy processes (not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does allow for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider deliberations as well.
On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section was effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped for) by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are very welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more effectively, and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted, we just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up to speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of getting more people involved and not boring those who already understand the basic issues.
The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted in Buenos Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this. The current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional services to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for when such options may be invoked. Such services could include training to enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation, mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being developed, it will likely be further revised.
The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and has been incorporated.
The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you to get them submitted prior to the deadline.
As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and Implementation WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what we are currently calling "implementation", it could be referred back to the GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways of coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably delay the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we are talking about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.
Alan
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Chuck: I’m not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack– of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above the other concerns… Thanks— J. From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 To: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Thanks Maria. Regarding ‘13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective’: · I don’t agree with this statement in the second paragraph: “So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness is currently the most pressing.” I don’t think it is the most pressing criterion but I do believe that is one of several that must be focused on. I would be much more comfortable if we changed the sentence to something like this: “So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness needs to be addressed.” · Along the same line, I would change the last paragraph as follows: “Additionally we suggest that while one concern is time-effectiveness and the fact that the PDPs simply takes tootake a lot of time long, reference might be also made in your recommendations to other, more qualitative measures of the effectiveness of policy-making; deliberativeness, participation and support.” In my opinion, it is critical to focus on all the criteria together rather than isolating one as the most important. As our other comments on this suggest, that risks sacrificing qualitative criteria. Do we want to compromise the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model to make PDPs more time efficient? I don’t think so. I believe what we want to do is to find ways to improve time-effectiveness while still making sure that PDPs are bottom-up and multi-stakeholder. For example, the qualitative criteria of participation and support are areas where improvements could be made to improve time-effectiveness. Finally, I think that categorizing time-effectiveness as the most pressing criterion is counter to what we say later in our comments: “we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO”. Chuck From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:26 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Hi all, Here's a revised draft response to the ATRT2 recommendations. I've incorporated all the comments and changed the focus re time-effectiveness to something I hope is closer to our area of agreement. If there are more comments between now and the deadline of 23.50 UTC tonight, I'll work them in tomorrow. It would be helpful if you can make comments on the new draft, V.3, but if you're already knee-deep in V.2, then don't worry; just send comments on that one instead. Track changes and clean versions attached. Best, m On 11 December 2013 17:02, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Thanks Alan. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not being prescriptive about. The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We (the GNSO and community) are making good progress toward coming up with methodologies which could improve the policy development process, but many of them will require funding (whether for services, travel or additional ICANN staff). What we are looking for is a commitment to put money into the process so that some of these pipe-dreams can become a reality. Alan At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Alan. Regarding the recommendations about using facilitators, did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN staff, community volunteers trained by ICANN or paid service providers? I understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than one the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the recommendation being discussed.
First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess. This recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in the body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my fingers crossed) be far more cohesive.
The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body of the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve the Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the final recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy processes (not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does allow for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider deliberations as well.
On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section was effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped for) by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are very welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more effectively, and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted, we just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up to speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of getting more people involved and not boring those who already understand the basic issues.
The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted in Buenos Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this. The current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional services to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for when such options may be invoked. Such services could include training to enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation, mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being developed, it will likely be further revised.
The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and has been incorporated.
The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you to get them submitted prior to the deadline.
As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and Implementation WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what we are currently calling "implementation", it could be referred back to the GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways of coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably delay the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we are talking about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.
Alan
James, I don't think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of the other criteria. In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the root problem, it is the symptom. We could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve the problem? We could reduce the time it takes to do a PDP? Would that be a measure of success? The original DNSO did that in policy work by having the GNSO Council act as a legislative body. It's easy to do things faster in a top-down management model. I am willing to consider other wording but I have a serious problem with the wording that is in the latest version Maria distributed. I think it undermines the other points we make. Chuck From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Chuck: I'm not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack- of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above the other concerns... Thanks- J. From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 To: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Thanks Maria. Regarding '13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective': * I don't agree with this statement in the second paragraph: "So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness is currently the most pressing." I don't think it is the most pressing criterion but I do believe that is one of several that must be focused on. I would be much more comfortable if we changed the sentence to something like this: "So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness needs to be addressed." * Along the same line, I would change the last paragraph as follows: "Additionally we suggest that while one concern is time-effectiveness and the fact that the PDPs simply takes tootake a lot of time long, reference might be also made in your recommendations to other, more qualitative measures of the effectiveness of policy-making; deliberativeness, participation and support." In my opinion, it is critical to focus on all the criteria together rather than isolating one as the most important. As our other comments on this suggest, that risks sacrificing qualitative criteria. Do we want to compromise the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model to make PDPs more time efficient? I don't think so. I believe what we want to do is to find ways to improve time-effectiveness while still making sure that PDPs are bottom-up and multi-stakeholder. For example, the qualitative criteria of participation and support are areas where improvements could be made to improve time-effectiveness. Finally, I think that categorizing time-effectiveness as the most pressing criterion is counter to what we say later in our comments: "we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO". Chuck From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:26 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Hi all, Here's a revised draft response to the ATRT2 recommendations. I've incorporated all the comments and changed the focus re time-effectiveness to something I hope is closer to our area of agreement. If there are more comments between now and the deadline of 23.50 UTC tonight, I'll work them in tomorrow. It would be helpful if you can make comments on the new draft, V.3, but if you're already knee-deep in V.2, then don't worry; just send comments on that one instead. Track changes and clean versions attached. Best, m On 11 December 2013 17:02, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Thanks Alan. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not being prescriptive about. The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We (the GNSO and community) are making good progress toward coming up with methodologies which could improve the policy development process, but many of them will require funding (whether for services, travel or additional ICANN staff). What we are looking for is a commitment to put money into the process so that some of these pipe-dreams can become a reality. Alan At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Alan. Regarding the recommendations about using facilitators, did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN staff, community volunteers trained by ICANN or paid service providers? I understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than one the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the recommendation being discussed.
First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess. This recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in the body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my fingers crossed) be far more cohesive.
The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body of the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve the Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the final recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy processes (not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does allow for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider deliberations as well.
On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section was effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped for) by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are very welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more effectively, and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted, we just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up to speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of getting more people involved and not boring those who already understand the basic issues.
The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted in Buenos Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this. The current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional services to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for when such options may be invoked. Such services could include training to enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation, mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being developed, it will likely be further revised.
The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and has been incorporated.
The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you to get them submitted prior to the deadline.
As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and Implementation WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what we are currently calling "implementation", it could be referred back to the GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways of coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably delay the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we are talking about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.
Alan
One more thing on this. I was comfortable with the changes in wording that James & I agreed to previously. What happened to that? Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM To: James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments James, I don't think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of the other criteria. In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the root problem, it is the symptom. We could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve the problem? We could reduce the time it takes to do a PDP? Would that be a measure of success? The original DNSO did that in policy work by having the GNSO Council act as a legislative body. It's easy to do things faster in a top-down management model. I am willing to consider other wording but I have a serious problem with the wording that is in the latest version Maria distributed. I think it undermines the other points we make. Chuck From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com]<mailto:[mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com]> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Chuck: I'm not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack- of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above the other concerns... Thanks- J. From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 To: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Thanks Maria. Regarding '13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective': * I don't agree with this statement in the second paragraph: "So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness is currently the most pressing." I don't think it is the most pressing criterion but I do believe that is one of several that must be focused on. I would be much more comfortable if we changed the sentence to something like this: "So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness needs to be addressed." * Along the same line, I would change the last paragraph as follows: "Additionally we suggest that while one concern is time-effectiveness and the fact that the PDPs simply takes tootake a lot of time long, reference might be also made in your recommendations to other, more qualitative measures of the effectiveness of policy-making; deliberativeness, participation and support." In my opinion, it is critical to focus on all the criteria together rather than isolating one as the most important. As our other comments on this suggest, that risks sacrificing qualitative criteria. Do we want to compromise the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model to make PDPs more time efficient? I don't think so. I believe what we want to do is to find ways to improve time-effectiveness while still making sure that PDPs are bottom-up and multi-stakeholder. For example, the qualitative criteria of participation and support are areas where improvements could be made to improve time-effectiveness. Finally, I think that categorizing time-effectiveness as the most pressing criterion is counter to what we say later in our comments: "we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO". Chuck From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:26 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Hi all, Here's a revised draft response to the ATRT2 recommendations. I've incorporated all the comments and changed the focus re time-effectiveness to something I hope is closer to our area of agreement. If there are more comments between now and the deadline of 23.50 UTC tonight, I'll work them in tomorrow. It would be helpful if you can make comments on the new draft, V.3, but if you're already knee-deep in V.2, then don't worry; just send comments on that one instead. Track changes and clean versions attached. Best, m On 11 December 2013 17:02, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Thanks Alan. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not being prescriptive about. The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We (the GNSO and community) are making good progress toward coming up with methodologies which could improve the policy development process, but many of them will require funding (whether for services, travel or additional ICANN staff). What we are looking for is a commitment to put money into the process so that some of these pipe-dreams can become a reality. Alan At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Alan. Regarding the recommendations about using facilitators, did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN staff, community volunteers trained by ICANN or paid service providers? I understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than one the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the recommendation being discussed.
First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess. This recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in the body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my fingers crossed) be far more cohesive.
The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body of the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve the Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the final recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy processes (not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does allow for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider deliberations as well.
On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section was effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped for) by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are very welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more effectively, and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted, we just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up to speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of getting more people involved and not boring those who already understand the basic issues.
The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted in Buenos Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this. The current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional services to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for when such options may be invoked. Such services could include training to enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation, mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being developed, it will likely be further revised.
The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and has been incorporated.
The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you to get them submitted prior to the deadline.
As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and Implementation WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what we are currently calling "implementation", it could be referred back to the GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways of coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably delay the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we are talking about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.
Alan
All, I'm probably a bit tardy in offering this to the discussion, but it might at least help inform future deliberations on the topic of time duration on a PDP. I started drafting a simple formula a while ago and I suspect a few more variables could be added. Duration of a PDP is a function of participation X frequency X complexity X knowledge D=PxFxCxK Food for thought... B Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 <mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:00 To: Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments One more thing on this. I was comfortable with the changes in wording that James & I agreed to previously. What happened to that? Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM To: James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments James, I don't think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of the other criteria. In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the root problem, it is the symptom. We could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve the problem? We could reduce the time it takes to do a PDP? Would that be a measure of success? The original DNSO did that in policy work by having the GNSO Council act as a legislative body. It's easy to do things faster in a top-down management model. I am willing to consider other wording but I have a serious problem with the wording that is in the latest version Maria distributed. I think it undermines the other points we make. Chuck From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Chuck: I'm not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack- of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above the other concerns. Thanks- J. From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 To: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Thanks Maria. Regarding '13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective': . I don't agree with this statement in the second paragraph: "So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness is currently the most pressing." I don't think it is the most pressing criterion but I do believe that is one of several that must be focused on. I would be much more comfortable if we changed the sentence to something like this: "So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness needs to be addressed." . Along the same line, I would change the last paragraph as follows: "Additionally we suggest that while one concern is time-effectiveness and the fact that the PDPs simply takes tootake a lot of time long, reference might be also made in your recommendations to other, more qualitative measures of the effectiveness of policy-making; deliberativeness, participation and support." In my opinion, it is critical to focus on all the criteria together rather than isolating one as the most important. As our other comments on this suggest, that risks sacrificing qualitative criteria. Do we want to compromise the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model to make PDPs more time efficient? I don't think so. I believe what we want to do is to find ways to improve time-effectiveness while still making sure that PDPs are bottom-up and multi-stakeholder. For example, the qualitative criteria of participation and support are areas where improvements could be made to improve time-effectiveness. Finally, I think that categorizing time-effectiveness as the most pressing criterion is counter to what we say later in our comments: "we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO". Chuck From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:26 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Hi all, Here's a revised draft response to the ATRT2 recommendations. I've incorporated all the comments and changed the focus re time-effectiveness to something I hope is closer to our area of agreement. If there are more comments between now and the deadline of 23.50 UTC tonight, I'll work them in tomorrow. It would be helpful if you can make comments on the new draft, V.3, but if you're already knee-deep in V.2, then don't worry; just send comments on that one instead. Track changes and clean versions attached. Best, m On 11 December 2013 17:02, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Thanks Alan. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not being prescriptive about. The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We (the GNSO and community) are making good progress toward coming up with methodologies which could improve the policy development process, but many of them will require funding (whether for services, travel or additional ICANN staff). What we are looking for is a commitment to put money into the process so that some of these pipe-dreams can become a reality. Alan At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Alan. Regarding the recommendations about using facilitators, did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN staff, community volunteers trained by ICANN or paid service providers? I understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than one the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the recommendation being discussed.
First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess. This recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in the body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my fingers crossed) be far more cohesive.
The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body of the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve the Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the final recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy processes (not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does allow for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider deliberations as well.
On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section was effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped for) by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are very welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more effectively, and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted, we just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up to speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of getting more people involved and not boring those who already understand the basic issues.
The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted in Buenos Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this. The current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional services to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for when such options may be invoked. Such services could include training to enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation, mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being developed, it will likely be further revised.
The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and has been incorporated.
The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you to get them submitted prior to the deadline.
As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and Implementation WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what we are currently calling "implementation", it could be referred back to the GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways of coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably delay the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we are talking about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.
Alan
Who is this and what have you done with Berry? Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, "Berry Cobb" <mail@berrycobb.com> wrote:
All,
I’m probably a bit tardy in offering this to the discussion, but it might at least help inform future deliberations on the topic of time duration on a PDP. I started drafting a simple formula a while ago and I suspect a few more variables could be added.
Duration of a PDP is a function of participation X frequency X complexity X knowledge D=PxFxCxK
Food for thought…….
B
Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:00 To: Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
One more thing on this. I was comfortable with the changes in wording that James & I agreed to previously. What happened to that?
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM To: James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
James,
I don’t think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of the other criteria. In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the root problem, it is the symptom. We could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve the problem? We could reduce the time it takes to do a PDP? Would that be a measure of success? The original DNSO did that in policy work by having the GNSO Council act as a legislative body. It’s easy to do things faster in a top-down management model. I am willing to consider other wording but I have a serious problem with the wording that is in the latest version Maria distributed. I think it undermines the other points we make.
Chuck
From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Chuck:
I’m not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack– of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above the other concerns…
Thanks—
J.
From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 To: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Thanks Maria.
Regarding ‘13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective’: ·’: · I don’t agree with this statement in the second paragraph: “So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness is currently the most pressing.” I don’t think it is the most pressing criterion but I do believe that is one of several that must be focused on. I would be much more comfortable if we changed the sentence to something like this: “So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness needs to be addressed.” · Along the same line, I would change the last paragraph as follows: “Additionally we suggest that while one concern is time-effectiveness and the fact that the PDPs simply takes tootake a lot of time long, reference might be also made in your recommendations to other, more qualitative measures of the effectiveness of policy-making; deliberativeness, participation and support.” In my opinion, it is critical to focus on all the criteria together rather than isolating one as the most important. As our other comments on this suggest, that risks sacrificing qualitative criteria. Do we want to compromise the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model to make PDPs more time efficient? I don’t think so. I believe what we want to do is to find ways to improve time-effectiveness while still making sure that PDPs are bottom-up and multi-stakeholder. For example, the qualitative criteria of participation and support are areas where improvements could be made to improve time-effectiveness. Finally, I think that categorizing time-effectiveness as the most pressing criterion is counter to what we say later in our comments: “we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO”.
Chuck
From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:26 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Hi all,
Here's a revised draft response to the ATRT2 recommendations. I've incorporated all the comments and changed the focus re time-effectiveness to something I hope is closer to our area of agreement.
If there are more comments between now and the deadline of 23.50 UTC tonight, I'll work them in tomorrow.
It would be helpful if you can make comments on the new draft, V.3, but if you're already knee-deep in V.2, then don't worry; just send comments on that one instead.
Track changes and clean versions attached.
Best, m
On 11 December 2013 17:02, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Thanks Alan.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not being prescriptive about.
The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We (the GNSO and community) are making good progress toward coming up with methodologies which could improve the policy development process, but many of them will require funding (whether for services, travel or additional ICANN staff). What we are looking for is a commitment to put money into the process so that some of these pipe-dreams can become a reality.
Alan
At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Alan. Regarding the recommendations about using facilitators, did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN staff, community volunteers trained by ICANN or paid service providers? I understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than one the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the recommendation being discussed.
First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess. This recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in the body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my fingers crossed) be far more cohesive.
The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body of the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve the Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the final recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy processes (not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does allow for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider deliberations as well.
On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section was effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped for) by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are very welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more effectively, and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted, we just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up to speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of getting more people involved and not boring those who already understand the basic issues.
The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted in Buenos Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this. The current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional services to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for when such options may be invoked. Such services could include training to enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation, mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being developed, it will likely be further revised.
The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and has been incorporated.
The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you to get them submitted prior to the deadline.
As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and Implementation WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what we are currently calling "implementation", it could be referred back to the GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways of coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably delay the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we are talking about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.
Alan
world as well.
Alan
tml>
I like it. I think it helps make my points with regard to time-effectiveness. ☺ Chuck From: John Berard [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:43 PM To: Berry Cobb Cc: Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Who is this and what have you done with Berry? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, "Berry Cobb" <mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com>> wrote: All, I’m probably a bit tardy in offering this to the discussion, but it might at least help inform future deliberations on the topic of time duration on a PDP. I started drafting a simple formula a while ago and I suspect a few more variables could be added. Duration of a PDP is a function of participation X frequency X complexity X knowledge D=PxFxCxK Food for thought……. B Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> @berrycobb From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:00 To: Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments One more thing on this. I was comfortable with the changes in wording that James & I agreed to previously. What happened to that? Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM To: James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments James, I don’t think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of the other criteria. In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the root problem, it is the symptom. We could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve the problem? We could reduce the time it takes to do a PDP? Would that be a measure of success? The original DNSO did that in policy work by having the GNSO Council act as a legislative body. It’s easy to do things faster in a top-down management model. I am willing to consider other wording but I have a serious problem with the wording that is in the latest version Maria distributed. I think it undermines the other points we make. Chuck From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com]<mailto:[mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com]> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Chuck: I’m not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack– of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above the other concerns… Thanks— J. From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 To: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Thanks Maria. Regarding ‘13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective’:
i would add a couple variables R = rigor L (since "C" is already taken) = level of consensus give me permission to do a sketchy work-product with low levels of consensus and i can bring a working-group home in a jiffy. ;-) mikey On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:27 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I like it. I think it helps make my points with regard to time-effectiveness. J
Chuck
From: John Berard [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:43 PM To: Berry Cobb Cc: Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Who is this and what have you done with Berry?
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, "Berry Cobb" <mail@berrycobb.com> wrote:
All,
I’m probably a bit tardy in offering this to the discussion, but it might at least help inform future deliberations on the topic of time duration on a PDP. I started drafting a simple formula a while ago and I suspect a few more variables could be added.
Duration of a PDP is a function of participation X frequency X complexity X knowledge D=PxFxCxK
Food for thought…….
B
Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:00 To: Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
One more thing on this. I was comfortable with the changes in wording that James & I agreed to previously. What happened to that?
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM To: James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
James,
I don’t think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of the other criteria. In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the root problem, it is the symptom. We could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve the problem? We could reduce the time it takes to do a PDP? Would that be a measure of success? The original DNSO did that in policy work by having the GNSO Council act as a legislative body. It’s easy to do things faster in a top-down management model. I am willing to consider other wording but I have a serious problem with the wording that is in the latest version Maria distributed. I think it undermines the other points we make.
Chuck
From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Chuck:
I’m not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack– of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above the other concerns…
Thanks—
J.
From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 To: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Thanks Maria.
Regarding ‘13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective’:
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
All, I understand Petter's point on timeliness and opportunity to consult with groups. Nevertheless, we have had reasonable opportunity to consider the report and our respective group's position/s on these. Therefore, it seems that there are two key points: 1. Have we got sufficient agreement on the content? 2. Can we commit to a submission by the deadline tomorrow? Accordingly, Maria please can you try to supply us with what you believe to be the latest draft, ideally that we have substantial agreement on. We can use this as a basis to answer one and two above in the meeting today. Thanks, Jonathan From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: 11 December 2013 23:07 To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: John Berard; Berry Cobb; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments i would add a couple variables R = rigor L (since "C" is already taken) = level of consensus give me permission to do a sketchy work-product with low levels of consensus and i can bring a working-group home in a jiffy. ;-) mikey On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:27 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: I like it. I think it helps make my points with regard to time-effectiveness. J Chuck From: John Berard [mailto:john@ <http://crediblecontext.com> crediblecontext.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:43 PM To: Berry Cobb Cc: Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; < <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Who is this and what have you done with Berry? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, "Berry Cobb" < <mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> mail@berrycobb.com> wrote: All, I'm probably a bit tardy in offering this to the discussion, but it might at least help inform future deliberations on the topic of time duration on a PDP. I started drafting a simple formula a while ago and I suspect a few more variables could be added. Duration of a PDP is a function of participation X frequency X complexity X knowledge D=PxFxCxK Food for thought... B Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 <mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb From: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> owner-council@gnso.icann.org [ <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:00 To: Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments One more thing on this. I was comfortable with the changes in wording that James & I agreed to previously. What happened to that? Chuck From: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> owner-council@gnso.icann.org [ <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM To: James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments James, I don't think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of the other criteria. In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the root problem, it is the symptom. We could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve the problem? We could reduce the time it takes to do a PDP? Would that be a measure of success? The original DNSO did that in policy work by having the GNSO Council act as a legislative body. It's easy to do things faster in a top-down management model. I am willing to consider other wording but I have a serious problem with the wording that is in the latest version Maria distributed. I think it undermines the other points we make. Chuck From: James M. Bladel <mailto:[mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com]> [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Chuck: I'm not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack- of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above the other concerns. Thanks- J. From: <Gomes>, Chuck < <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 To: Maria Farrell < <mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com> maria.farrell@gmail.com> Cc: Alan Greenberg < <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, David Cake < <mailto:dave@difference.com.au> dave@difference.com.au>, Mike O'Connor < <mailto:mike@haven2.com> mike@haven2.com>, " <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org" < <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Thanks Maria. Regarding '13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective': PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Thanks - and, Maria, please also note in red what may have been changed since the last draft before this new one. Best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 12 december 2013, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> skrev:
All,
I understand Petter’s point on timeliness and opportunity to consult with groups. Nevertheless, we have had reasonable opportunity to consider the report and our respective group’s position/s on these.
Therefore, it seems that there are two key points:
1.Have we got sufficient agreement on the content?
2.Can we commit to a submission by the deadline tomorrow?
Accordingly, Maria please can you try to supply us with what you believe to be the latest draft, ideally that we have substantial agreement on.
We can use this as a basis to answer one and two above in the meeting today.
Thanks,
Jonathan
From:Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: 11 December 2013 23:07 To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: John Berard; Berry Cobb; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
i would add a couple variables
R = rigor
L (since "C" is already taken) = level of consensus
give me permission to do a sketchy work-product with low levels of consensus and i can bring a working-group home in a jiffy. ;-)
mikey
On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:27 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <<cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
I like it. I think it helps make my points with regard to time-effectiveness. J
Chuck
From:John Berard [mailto:john@<http://crediblecontext.com>] Sent:Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:43 PM To:Berry Cobb Cc:Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; <<council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject:Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Who is this and what have you done with Berry?
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, "Berry Cobb" <<mail@berrycobb.com>> wrote:
All,
I’m probably a bit tardy in offering this to the discussion, but it might at least help inform future deliberations on the topic of time duration on a PDP. I started drafting a simple formula a while ago and I suspect a few more variables could be added.
Duration of a PDP is a function of participation X frequency X complexity X knowledge
D=PxFxCxK
Food for thought…….
B
Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
<mail@berrycobb.com>
@berrycobb
From:<owner-council@gnso.icann.org>[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>]On Behalf OfGomes, Chuck Sent:Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:00 To:Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc:Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor;<council@gnso.icann.org> Subject:RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
One more thing on this. I was comfortable with the changes in wording that James & I agreed to previously. What happened to that?
Chuck
From:<owner-council@gnso.icann.org>[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>]On Behalf OfGomes, Chuck Sent:Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM To:James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc:Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor;<council@gnso.icann.org> Subject:RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
James,
I don’t think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of the other criteria. In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the root problem, it is the symptom. We could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve the problem? We could reduce the time it takes to do a PDP? Would that be a measure of success? The original DNSO did that in policy work by having the GNSO Council act as a legislative body. It’s easy to do things faster in a top-down management model. I am willing to consider other wording but I have a serious problem with the wording that is in the latest version Maria distributed. I think it undermines the other points we make.
Chuck
From:James M. Bladel<mailto:[mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com]> Sent:Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM To:Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell Cc:Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor;<council@gnso.icann.org> Subject:Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Chuck:
I’m not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack– of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above the other concerns…
Thanks—
J.
From:<Gomes>, Chuck <<cgomes@verisign.com>> Date:Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 To:Maria Farrell <<maria.farrell@gmail.com>> Cc:Alan Greenberg <<alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, David Cake <<dave@difference.com.au>>, Mike O'Connor <<mike@haven2.com>>, "<council@gnso.icann.org>" <<council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject:RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Thanks Maria.
Regarding ‘13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective’:
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: <http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Hi Jonathan, I'll send an updated version shortly. I'm doing my best to try and accommodate people's wishes, but it's not clear to me how. I will include any actual changes to the text that have been suggested in the past 18 hours - but general discussion on related points I'm not able to accommodate as I have a couple of other deadlines to get out before this afternoon. If anyone who's discussed issues on-list wants to try inserting actual text, that would be welcome. Maria On 12 December 2013 10:46, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
All,
I understand Petter’s point on timeliness and opportunity to consult with groups. Nevertheless, we have had reasonable opportunity to consider the report and our respective group’s position/s on these.
Therefore, it seems that there are two key points:
1. Have we got sufficient agreement on the content?
2. Can we commit to a submission by the deadline tomorrow?
Accordingly, Maria please can you try to supply us with what you believe to be the latest draft, ideally that we have substantial agreement on.
We can use this as a basis to answer one and two above in the meeting today.
Thanks,
Jonathan
*From:* Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] *Sent:* 11 December 2013 23:07 *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* John Berard; Berry Cobb; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; <council@gnso.icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
i would add a couple variables
R = rigor
L (since "C" is already taken) = level of consensus
give me permission to do a sketchy work-product with low levels of consensus and i can bring a working-group home in a jiffy. ;-)
mikey
On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:27 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I like it. I think it helps make my points with regard to time-effectiveness. J
Chuck
*From:* John Berard [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:43 PM *To:* Berry Cobb *Cc:* Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Who is this and what have you done with Berry?
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, "Berry Cobb" <mail@berrycobb.com> wrote:
All,
I’m probably a bit tardy in offering this to the discussion, but it might at least help inform future deliberations on the topic of time duration on a PDP. I started drafting a simple formula a while ago and I suspect a few more variables could be added.
Duration of a PDP is a function of participation X frequency X complexity X knowledge
D=PxFxCxK
Food for thought…….
B
Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail@berrycobb.com
@berrycobb
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<owner-council@gnso.icann.org> ] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:00 *To:* Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
One more thing on this. I was comfortable with the changes in wording that James & I agreed to previously. What happened to that?
Chuck
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<owner-council@gnso.icann.org> ] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM *To:* James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
James,
I don’t think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of the other criteria. In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the root problem, it is the symptom. We could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve the problem? We could reduce the time it takes to do a PDP? Would that be a measure of success? The original DNSO did that in policy work by having the GNSO Council act as a legislative body. It’s easy to do things faster in a top-down management model. I am willing to consider other wording but I have a serious problem with the wording that is in the latest version Maria distributed. I think it undermines the other points we make.
Chuck
*From:* James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Chuck:
I’m not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack– of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above the other concerns…
Thanks—
J.
*From: *<Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> *Date: *Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 *To: *Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com> *Cc: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, David Cake < dave@difference.com.au>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>, " council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Thanks Maria.
Regarding ‘*13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective*’:
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Here is the updated version for discussion today. Maria On 12 December 2013 12:08, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
I'll send an updated version shortly. I'm doing my best to try and accommodate people's wishes, but it's not clear to me how.
I will include any actual changes to the text that have been suggested in the past 18 hours - but general discussion on related points I'm not able to accommodate as I have a couple of other deadlines to get out before this afternoon. If anyone who's discussed issues on-list wants to try inserting actual text, that would be welcome.
Maria
On 12 December 2013 10:46, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>wrote:
All,
I understand Petter’s point on timeliness and opportunity to consult with groups. Nevertheless, we have had reasonable opportunity to consider the report and our respective group’s position/s on these.
Therefore, it seems that there are two key points:
1. Have we got sufficient agreement on the content?
2. Can we commit to a submission by the deadline tomorrow?
Accordingly, Maria please can you try to supply us with what you believe to be the latest draft, ideally that we have substantial agreement on.
We can use this as a basis to answer one and two above in the meeting today.
Thanks,
Jonathan
*From:* Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] *Sent:* 11 December 2013 23:07 *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* John Berard; Berry Cobb; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; <council@gnso.icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
i would add a couple variables
R = rigor
L (since "C" is already taken) = level of consensus
give me permission to do a sketchy work-product with low levels of consensus and i can bring a working-group home in a jiffy. ;-)
mikey
On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:27 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I like it. I think it helps make my points with regard to time-effectiveness. J
Chuck
*From:* John Berard [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:43 PM *To:* Berry Cobb *Cc:* Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Who is this and what have you done with Berry?
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, "Berry Cobb" <mail@berrycobb.com> wrote:
All,
I’m probably a bit tardy in offering this to the discussion, but it might at least help inform future deliberations on the topic of time duration on a PDP. I started drafting a simple formula a while ago and I suspect a few more variables could be added.
Duration of a PDP is a function of participation X frequency X complexity X knowledge
D=PxFxCxK
Food for thought…….
B
Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail@berrycobb.com
@berrycobb
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<owner-council@gnso.icann.org> ] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:00 *To:* Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
One more thing on this. I was comfortable with the changes in wording that James & I agreed to previously. What happened to that?
Chuck
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<owner-council@gnso.icann.org> ] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM *To:* James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
James,
I don’t think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of the other criteria. In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the root problem, it is the symptom. We could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve the problem? We could reduce the time it takes to do a PDP? Would that be a measure of success? The original DNSO did that in policy work by having the GNSO Council act as a legislative body. It’s easy to do things faster in a top-down management model. I am willing to consider other wording but I have a serious problem with the wording that is in the latest version Maria distributed. I think it undermines the other points we make.
Chuck
*From:* James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Chuck:
I’m not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack– of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above the other concerns…
Thanks—
J.
*From: *<Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> *Date: *Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 *To: *Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com> *Cc: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, David Cake < dave@difference.com.au>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>, " council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Thanks Maria.
Regarding ‘*13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective*’:
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Here are some suggested edits in redline format for the section about making PDPs more time effective. Chuck From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 7:17 AM To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: Mike O'Connor; Gomes, Chuck; John Berard; Berry Cobb; James M. Bladel; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Here is the updated version for discussion today. Maria On 12 December 2013 12:08, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Jonathan, I'll send an updated version shortly. I'm doing my best to try and accommodate people's wishes, but it's not clear to me how. I will include any actual changes to the text that have been suggested in the past 18 hours - but general discussion on related points I'm not able to accommodate as I have a couple of other deadlines to get out before this afternoon. If anyone who's discussed issues on-list wants to try inserting actual text, that would be welcome. Maria On 12 December 2013 10:46, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, I understand Petter's point on timeliness and opportunity to consult with groups. Nevertheless, we have had reasonable opportunity to consider the report and our respective group's position/s on these. Therefore, it seems that there are two key points: 1. Have we got sufficient agreement on the content? 2. Can we commit to a submission by the deadline tomorrow? Accordingly, Maria please can you try to supply us with what you believe to be the latest draft, ideally that we have substantial agreement on. We can use this as a basis to answer one and two above in the meeting today. Thanks, Jonathan From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>] Sent: 11 December 2013 23:07 To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: John Berard; Berry Cobb; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments i would add a couple variables R = rigor L (since "C" is already taken) = level of consensus give me permission to do a sketchy work-product with low levels of consensus and i can bring a working-group home in a jiffy. ;-) mikey On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:27 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I like it. I think it helps make my points with regard to time-effectiveness. :) Chuck From: John Berard [mailto:john@<mailto:john@>crediblecontext.com<http://crediblecontext.com>] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:43 PM To: Berry Cobb Cc: Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Who is this and what have you done with Berry? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, "Berry Cobb" <mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com>> wrote: All, I'm probably a bit tardy in offering this to the discussion, but it might at least help inform future deliberations on the topic of time duration on a PDP. I started drafting a simple formula a while ago and I suspect a few more variables could be added. Duration of a PDP is a function of participation X frequency X complexity X knowledge D=PxFxCxK Food for thought....... B Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735<tel:720.839.5735> mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> @berrycobb From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:00 To: Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments One more thing on this. I was comfortable with the changes in wording that James & I agreed to previously. What happened to that? Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM To: James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments James, I don't think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of the other criteria. In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the root problem, it is the symptom. We could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve the problem? We could reduce the time it takes to do a PDP? Would that be a measure of success? The original DNSO did that in policy work by having the GNSO Council act as a legislative body. It's easy to do things faster in a top-down management model. I am willing to consider other wording but I have a serious problem with the wording that is in the latest version Maria distributed. I think it undermines the other points we make. Chuck From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com]<mailto:[mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com]> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Chuck: I'm not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack- of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above the other concerns... Thanks- J. From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 To: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Thanks Maria. Regarding '13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective': PHONE: 651-647-6109<tel:651-647-6109>, FAX: 866-280-2356<tel:866-280-2356>, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
I found an error in the first version of my edits, corrected it and added a comment to that suggested change. Please refer to this version instead of the first one I sent a few minutes ago. Chuck From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 9:06 AM To: 'Maria Farrell'; Jonathan Robinson Cc: Mike O'Connor; John Berard; Berry Cobb; James M. Bladel; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Here are some suggested edits in redline format for the section about making PDPs more time effective. Chuck From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com]<mailto:[mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com]> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 7:17 AM To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: Mike O'Connor; Gomes, Chuck; John Berard; Berry Cobb; James M. Bladel; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Here is the updated version for discussion today. Maria On 12 December 2013 12:08, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Jonathan, I'll send an updated version shortly. I'm doing my best to try and accommodate people's wishes, but it's not clear to me how. I will include any actual changes to the text that have been suggested in the past 18 hours - but general discussion on related points I'm not able to accommodate as I have a couple of other deadlines to get out before this afternoon. If anyone who's discussed issues on-list wants to try inserting actual text, that would be welcome. Maria On 12 December 2013 10:46, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, I understand Petter's point on timeliness and opportunity to consult with groups. Nevertheless, we have had reasonable opportunity to consider the report and our respective group's position/s on these. Therefore, it seems that there are two key points: 1. Have we got sufficient agreement on the content? 2. Can we commit to a submission by the deadline tomorrow? Accordingly, Maria please can you try to supply us with what you believe to be the latest draft, ideally that we have substantial agreement on. We can use this as a basis to answer one and two above in the meeting today. Thanks, Jonathan From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>] Sent: 11 December 2013 23:07 To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: John Berard; Berry Cobb; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments i would add a couple variables R = rigor L (since "C" is already taken) = level of consensus give me permission to do a sketchy work-product with low levels of consensus and i can bring a working-group home in a jiffy. ;-) mikey On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:27 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I like it. I think it helps make my points with regard to time-effectiveness. :) Chuck From: John Berard [mailto:john@<mailto:john@>crediblecontext.com<http://crediblecontext.com>] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:43 PM To: Berry Cobb Cc: Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Who is this and what have you done with Berry? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, "Berry Cobb" <mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com>> wrote: All, I'm probably a bit tardy in offering this to the discussion, but it might at least help inform future deliberations on the topic of time duration on a PDP. I started drafting a simple formula a while ago and I suspect a few more variables could be added. Duration of a PDP is a function of participation X frequency X complexity X knowledge D=PxFxCxK Food for thought....... B Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735<tel:720.839.5735> mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> @berrycobb From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:00 To: Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments One more thing on this. I was comfortable with the changes in wording that James & I agreed to previously. What happened to that? Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM To: James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments James, I don't think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of the other criteria. In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the root problem, it is the symptom. We could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve the problem? We could reduce the time it takes to do a PDP? Would that be a measure of success? The original DNSO did that in policy work by having the GNSO Council act as a legislative body. It's easy to do things faster in a top-down management model. I am willing to consider other wording but I have a serious problem with the wording that is in the latest version Maria distributed. I think it undermines the other points we make. Chuck From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com]<mailto:[mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com]> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Chuck: I'm not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack- of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above the other concerns... Thanks- J. From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 To: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Thanks Maria. Regarding '13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective': PHONE: 651-647-6109<tel:651-647-6109>, FAX: 866-280-2356<tel:866-280-2356>, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
I like these edits. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 8:11 AM To: Maria Farrell; Jonathan Robinson Cc: Mike O'Connor; John Berard; Berry Cobb; James M. Bladel; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments I found an error in the first version of my edits, corrected it and added a comment to that suggested change. Please refer to this version instead of the first one I sent a few minutes ago. Chuck From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 9:06 AM To: 'Maria Farrell'; Jonathan Robinson Cc: Mike O'Connor; John Berard; Berry Cobb; James M. Bladel; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Here are some suggested edits in redline format for the section about making PDPs more time effective. Chuck From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com]<mailto:[mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com]> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 7:17 AM To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: Mike O'Connor; Gomes, Chuck; John Berard; Berry Cobb; James M. Bladel; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Here is the updated version for discussion today. Maria On 12 December 2013 12:08, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Jonathan, I'll send an updated version shortly. I'm doing my best to try and accommodate people's wishes, but it's not clear to me how. I will include any actual changes to the text that have been suggested in the past 18 hours - but general discussion on related points I'm not able to accommodate as I have a couple of other deadlines to get out before this afternoon. If anyone who's discussed issues on-list wants to try inserting actual text, that would be welcome. Maria On 12 December 2013 10:46, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, I understand Petter's point on timeliness and opportunity to consult with groups. Nevertheless, we have had reasonable opportunity to consider the report and our respective group's position/s on these. Therefore, it seems that there are two key points: 1. Have we got sufficient agreement on the content? 2. Can we commit to a submission by the deadline tomorrow? Accordingly, Maria please can you try to supply us with what you believe to be the latest draft, ideally that we have substantial agreement on. We can use this as a basis to answer one and two above in the meeting today. Thanks, Jonathan From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>] Sent: 11 December 2013 23:07 To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: John Berard; Berry Cobb; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments i would add a couple variables R = rigor L (since "C" is already taken) = level of consensus give me permission to do a sketchy work-product with low levels of consensus and i can bring a working-group home in a jiffy. ;-) mikey On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:27 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I like it. I think it helps make my points with regard to time-effectiveness. :) Chuck From: John Berard [mailto:john@<mailto:john@>crediblecontext.com<http://crediblecontext.com>] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:43 PM To: Berry Cobb Cc: Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Who is this and what have you done with Berry? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, "Berry Cobb" <mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com>> wrote: All, I'm probably a bit tardy in offering this to the discussion, but it might at least help inform future deliberations on the topic of time duration on a PDP. I started drafting a simple formula a while ago and I suspect a few more variables could be added. Duration of a PDP is a function of participation X frequency X complexity X knowledge D=PxFxCxK Food for thought....... B Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735<tel:720.839.5735> mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> @berrycobb From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:00 To: Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments One more thing on this. I was comfortable with the changes in wording that James & I agreed to previously. What happened to that? Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM To: James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments James, I don't think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of the other criteria. In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the root problem, it is the symptom. We could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve the problem? We could reduce the time it takes to do a PDP? Would that be a measure of success? The original DNSO did that in policy work by having the GNSO Council act as a legislative body. It's easy to do things faster in a top-down management model. I am willing to consider other wording but I have a serious problem with the wording that is in the latest version Maria distributed. I think it undermines the other points we make. Chuck From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com]<mailto:[mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com]> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Chuck: I'm not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack- of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above the other concerns... Thanks- J. From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 To: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Thanks Maria. Regarding '13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective': PHONE: 651-647-6109<tel:651-647-6109>, FAX: 866-280-2356<tel:866-280-2356>, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
I guess this is a Eureka moment. All we need to do is ensure that we have few or no people working on a policy, and make sure they have little or no knowledge. But if that were true, I know of a few WGs that should have completed there work LONG before they actually did.... At 11/12/2013 02:36 PM, Berry Cobb wrote:
All,
Im probably a bit tardy in offering this to the discussion, but it might at least help inform future deliberations on the topic of time duration on a PDP. I started drafting a simple formula a while ago and I suspect a few more variables could be added.
Duration of a PDP is a function of participation X frequency X complexity X knowledge D=PxFxCxK
Food for thought .
B
Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 <mailto:mail@berrycobb.com>mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:00 To: Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
One more thing on this. I was comfortable with the changes in wording that James & I agreed to previously. What happened to that?
Chuck
From: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM To: James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
James,
I dont think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of the other criteria. In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the root problem, it is the symptom. We could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve the problem? We could reduce the time it takes to do a PDP? Would that be a measure of success? The original DNSO did that in policy work by having the GNSO Council act as a legislative body. Its easy to do things faster in a top-down management model. I am willing to consider other wording but I have a serious problem with the wording that is in the latest version Maria distributed. I think it undermines the other points we make.
Chuck
From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Chuck:
Im not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above the other concerns
Thanks
J.
From: <Gomes>, Chuck <<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 To: Maria Farrell <<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>maria.farrell@gmail.com> Cc: Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, David Cake <<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>dave@difference.com.au>, Mike O'Connor <<mailto:mike@haven2.com>mike@haven2.com>, "<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org" <<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Thanks Maria.
Regarding 13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective: · I dont agree with this statement in the second paragraph: So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness is currently the most pressing. I dont think it is the most pressing criterion but I do believe that is one of several that must be focused on. I would be much more comfortable if we changed the sentence to something like this: So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness needs to be addressed. · Along the same line, I would change the last paragraph as follows: Additionally we suggest that while one concern is time-effectiveness and the fact that the PDPs simply takes tootake a lot of time long, reference might be also made in your recommendations to other, more qualitative measures of the effectiveness of policy-making; deliberativeness, participation and support. In my opinion, it is critical to focus on all the criteria together rather than isolating one as the most important. As our other comments on this suggest, that risks sacrificing qualitative criteria. Do we want to compromise the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model to make PDPs more time efficient? I dont think so. I believe what we want to do is to find ways to improve time-effectiveness while still making sure that PDPs are bottom-up and multi-stakeholder. For example, the qualitative criteria of participation and support are areas where improvements could be made to improve time-effectiveness. Finally, I think that categorizing time-effectiveness as the most pressing criterion is counter to what we say later in our comments: we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO.
Chuck
From: Maria Farrell [<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:26 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Hi all, Here's a revised draft response to the ATRT2 recommendations. I've incorporated all the comments and changed the focus re time-effectiveness to something I hope is closer to our area of agreement. If there are more comments between now and the deadline of 23.50 UTC tonight, I'll work them in tomorrow. It would be helpful if you can make comments on the new draft, V.3, but if you're already knee-deep in V.2, then don't worry; just send comments on that one instead. Track changes and clean versions attached. Best, m
On 11 December 2013 17:02, Gomes, Chuck <<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Thanks Alan.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not being prescriptive about.
The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We (the GNSO and community) are making good progress toward coming up with methodologies which could improve the policy development process, but many of them will require funding (whether for services, travel or additional ICANN staff). What we are looking for is a commitment to put money into the process so that some of these pipe-dreams can become a reality.
Alan
At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Alan. Regarding the recommendations about using facilitators, did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN staff, community volunteers trained by ICANN or paid service providers? I understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than one the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the recommendation being discussed.
First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess. This recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in the body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my fingers crossed) be far more cohesive.
The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body of the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve the Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the final recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy processes (not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does allow for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider deliberations as well.
On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section was effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped for) by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are very welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more effectively, and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted, we just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up to speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of getting more people involved and not boring those who already understand the basic issues.
The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted in Buenos Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this. The current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional services to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for when such options may be invoked. Such services could include training to enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation, mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being developed, it will likely be further revised.
The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and has been incorporated.
The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you to get them submitted prior to the deadline.
As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and Implementation WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what we are currently calling "implementation", it could be referred back to the GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways of coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably delay the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we are talking about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.
Alan
Chuck, I incorporated them verbatim. Not sure what the issue is. On 11 December 2013 19:00, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
One more thing on this. I was comfortable with the changes in wording that James & I agreed to previously. What happened to that?
Chuck
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM *To:* James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell
*Cc:* Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
James,
I don’t think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of the other criteria. In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the root problem, it is the symptom. We could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve the problem? We could reduce the time it takes to do a PDP? Would that be a measure of success? The original DNSO did that in policy work by having the GNSO Council act as a legislative body. It’s easy to do things faster in a top-down management model. I am willing to consider other wording but I have a serious problem with the wording that is in the latest version Maria distributed. I think it undermines the other points we make.
Chuck
*From:* James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Chuck:
I’m not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack– of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above the other concerns…
Thanks—
J.
*From: *<Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> *Date: *Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 *To: *Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com> *Cc: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, David Cake < dave@difference.com.au>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>, " council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Thanks Maria.
Regarding ‘*13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective*’:
· I don’t agree with this statement in the second paragraph: “So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness is currently the most pressing.” I don’t think it is the most pressing criterion but I do believe that is one of several that must be focused on. I would be much more comfortable if we changed the sentence to something like this: “So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness needs to be addressed.”
· Along the same line, I would change the last paragraph as follows: “Additionally we suggest that while one concern is time-effectiveness and the fact that the PDPs simply takes tootake a lot of time long, reference might be also made in your recommendations to other, more qualitative measures of the effectiveness of policy-making; deliberativeness, participation and support.”
In my opinion, it is critical to focus on all the criteria together rather than isolating one as the most important. As our other comments on this suggest, that risks sacrificing qualitative criteria. Do we want to compromise the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model to make PDPs more time efficient? I don’t think so. I believe what we want to do is to find ways to improve time-effectiveness while still making sure that PDPs are bottom-up and multi-stakeholder. For example, the qualitative criteria of participation and support are areas where improvements could be made to improve time-effectiveness. Finally, I think that categorizing time-effectiveness as the most pressing criterion is counter to what we say later in our comments: “we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO”.
Chuck
*From:* Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com<maria.farrell@gmail.com>]
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:26 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Hi all,
Here's a revised draft response to the ATRT2 recommendations. I've incorporated all the comments and changed the focus re time-effectiveness to something I hope is closer to our area of agreement.
If there are more comments between now and the deadline of 23.50 UTC tonight, I'll work them in tomorrow.
It would be helpful if you can make comments on the new draft, V.3, but if you're already knee-deep in V.2, then don't worry; just send comments on that one instead.
Track changes and clean versions attached.
Best, m
On 11 December 2013 17:02, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Alan.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not being prescriptive about.
The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We (the GNSO and community) are making good progress toward coming up with methodologies which could improve the policy development process, but many of them will require funding (whether for services, travel or additional ICANN staff). What we are looking for is a commitment to put money into the process so that some of these pipe-dreams can become a reality.
Alan
At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Alan. Regarding the recommendations about using facilitators, did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN staff, community volunteers trained by ICANN or paid service providers? I understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than one the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the recommendation being discussed.
First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess. This recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in the body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my fingers crossed) be far more cohesive.
The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body of the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve the Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the final recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy processes (not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does allow for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider deliberations as well.
On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section was effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped for) by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are very welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more effectively, and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted, we just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up to speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of getting more people involved and not boring those who already understand the basic issues.
The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted in Buenos Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this. The current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional services to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for when such options may be invoked. Such services could include training to enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation, mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being developed, it will likely be further revised.
The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and has been incorporated.
The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you to get them submitted prior to the deadline.
As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and Implementation WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what we are currently calling "implementation", it could be referred back to the GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways of coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably delay the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we are talking about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.
Alan
Maria, Here is what I was referring to Maria. Thanks for all the time you have spent on this and sorry for making your task more difficult. Chuck From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 7:06 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: James M. Bladel; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Chuck, I incorporated them verbatim. Not sure what the issue is. On 11 December 2013 19:00, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: One more thing on this. I was comfortable with the changes in wording that James & I agreed to previously. What happened to that? Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM To: James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments James, I don't think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of the other criteria. In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the root problem, it is the symptom. We could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve the problem? We could reduce the time it takes to do a PDP? Would that be a measure of success? The original DNSO did that in policy work by having the GNSO Council act as a legislative body. It's easy to do things faster in a top-down management model. I am willing to consider other wording but I have a serious problem with the wording that is in the latest version Maria distributed. I think it undermines the other points we make. Chuck From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com]<mailto:[mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com]> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Chuck: I'm not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack- of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above the other concerns... Thanks- J. From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 To: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Thanks Maria. Regarding '13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective': * I don't agree with this statement in the second paragraph: "So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness is currently the most pressing." I don't think it is the most pressing criterion but I do believe that is one of several that must be focused on. I would be much more comfortable if we changed the sentence to something like this: "So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness needs to be addressed." * Along the same line, I would change the last paragraph as follows: "Additionally we suggest that while one concern is time-effectiveness and the fact that the PDPs simply takes tootake a lot of time long, reference might be also made in your recommendations to other, more qualitative measures of the effectiveness of policy-making; deliberativeness, participation and support." In my opinion, it is critical to focus on all the criteria together rather than isolating one as the most important. As our other comments on this suggest, that risks sacrificing qualitative criteria. Do we want to compromise the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model to make PDPs more time efficient? I don't think so. I believe what we want to do is to find ways to improve time-effectiveness while still making sure that PDPs are bottom-up and multi-stakeholder. For example, the qualitative criteria of participation and support are areas where improvements could be made to improve time-effectiveness. Finally, I think that categorizing time-effectiveness as the most pressing criterion is counter to what we say later in our comments: "we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO". Chuck From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:26 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Hi all, Here's a revised draft response to the ATRT2 recommendations. I've incorporated all the comments and changed the focus re time-effectiveness to something I hope is closer to our area of agreement. If there are more comments between now and the deadline of 23.50 UTC tonight, I'll work them in tomorrow. It would be helpful if you can make comments on the new draft, V.3, but if you're already knee-deep in V.2, then don't worry; just send comments on that one instead. Track changes and clean versions attached. Best, m On 11 December 2013 17:02, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Thanks Alan. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not being prescriptive about. The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We (the GNSO and community) are making good progress toward coming up with methodologies which could improve the policy development process, but many of them will require funding (whether for services, travel or additional ICANN staff). What we are looking for is a commitment to put money into the process so that some of these pipe-dreams can become a reality. Alan At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Alan. Regarding the recommendations about using facilitators, did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN staff, community volunteers trained by ICANN or paid service providers? I understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than one the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the recommendation being discussed.
First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess. This recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in the body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my fingers crossed) be far more cohesive.
The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body of the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve the Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the final recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy processes (not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does allow for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider deliberations as well.
On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section was effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped for) by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are very welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more effectively, and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted, we just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up to speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of getting more people involved and not boring those who already understand the basic issues.
The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted in Buenos Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this. The current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional services to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for when such options may be invoked. Such services could include training to enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation, mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being developed, it will likely be further revised.
The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and has been incorporated.
The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you to get them submitted prior to the deadline.
As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and Implementation WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what we are currently calling "implementation", it could be referred back to the GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways of coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably delay the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we are talking about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.
Alan
Thanks, Chuck. This looks good to me. Maria On 12 December 2013 14:22, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Maria,
Here is what I was referring to Maria.
Thanks for all the time you have spent on this and sorry for making your task more difficult.
Chuck
*From:* Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, December 12, 2013 7:06 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* James M. Bladel; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Chuck, I incorporated them verbatim. Not sure what the issue is.
On 11 December 2013 19:00, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
One more thing on this. I was comfortable with the changes in wording that James & I agreed to previously. What happened to that?
Chuck
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM *To:* James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell
*Cc:* Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org
*Subject:* RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
James,
I don’t think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of the other criteria. In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the root problem, it is the symptom. We could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve the problem? We could reduce the time it takes to do a PDP? Would that be a measure of success? The original DNSO did that in policy work by having the GNSO Council act as a legislative body. It’s easy to do things faster in a top-down management model. I am willing to consider other wording but I have a serious problem with the wording that is in the latest version Maria distributed. I think it undermines the other points we make.
Chuck
*From:* James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Chuck:
I’m not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack– of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above the other concerns…
Thanks—
J.
*From: *<Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> *Date: *Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 *To: *Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com> *Cc: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, David Cake < dave@difference.com.au>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>, " council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Thanks Maria.
Regarding ‘*13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective*’:
· I don’t agree with this statement in the second paragraph: “So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness is currently the most pressing.” I don’t think it is the most pressing criterion but I do believe that is one of several that must be focused on. I would be much more comfortable if we changed the sentence to something like this: “So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness needs to be addressed.”
· Along the same line, I would change the last paragraph as follows: “Additionally we suggest that while one concern is time-effectiveness and the fact that the PDPs simply takes tootake a lot of time long, reference might be also made in your recommendations to other, more qualitative measures of the effectiveness of policy-making; deliberativeness, participation and support.”
In my opinion, it is critical to focus on all the criteria together rather than isolating one as the most important. As our other comments on this suggest, that risks sacrificing qualitative criteria. Do we want to compromise the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model to make PDPs more time efficient? I don’t think so. I believe what we want to do is to find ways to improve time-effectiveness while still making sure that PDPs are bottom-up and multi-stakeholder. For example, the qualitative criteria of participation and support are areas where improvements could be made to improve time-effectiveness. Finally, I think that categorizing time-effectiveness as the most pressing criterion is counter to what we say later in our comments: “we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO”.
Chuck
*From:* Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com<maria.farrell@gmail.com>]
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:26 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Hi all,
Here's a revised draft response to the ATRT2 recommendations. I've incorporated all the comments and changed the focus re time-effectiveness to something I hope is closer to our area of agreement.
If there are more comments between now and the deadline of 23.50 UTC tonight, I'll work them in tomorrow.
It would be helpful if you can make comments on the new draft, V.3, but if you're already knee-deep in V.2, then don't worry; just send comments on that one instead.
Track changes and clean versions attached.
Best, m
On 11 December 2013 17:02, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Alan.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not being prescriptive about.
The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We (the GNSO and community) are making good progress toward coming up with methodologies which could improve the policy development process, but many of them will require funding (whether for services, travel or additional ICANN staff). What we are looking for is a commitment to put money into the process so that some of these pipe-dreams can become a reality.
Alan
At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Alan. Regarding the recommendations about using facilitators, did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN staff, community volunteers trained by ICANN or paid service providers? I understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than one the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the recommendation being discussed.
First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess. This recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in the body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my fingers crossed) be far more cohesive.
The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body of the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve the Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the final recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy processes (not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does allow for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider deliberations as well.
On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section was effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped for) by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are very welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more effectively, and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted, we just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up to speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of getting more people involved and not boring those who already understand the basic issues.
The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted in Buenos Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this. The current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional services to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for when such options may be invoked. Such services could include training to enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation, mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being developed, it will likely be further revised.
The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and has been incorporated.
The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you to get them submitted prior to the deadline.
As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and Implementation WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what we are currently calling "implementation", it could be referred back to the GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways of coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably delay the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we are talking about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.
Alan
Maria (and colleagues), We need to get this submitted today. My understanding from yesterday's call is that we agreed to submit in substantially the same form as had been drafted. In addition, we will include content that indicates that this is a GNSO Council submission and that we understand that individual GNSO groups will be submitting their own positions. Please confirm if possible and indicate if you are anticipating that I will run with it from here which I am happy to do. Thanks, Jonathan From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com] Sent: 12 December 2013 14:59 To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: James M. Bladel; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Thanks, Chuck. This looks good to me. Maria On 12 December 2013 14:22, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Maria, Here is what I was referring to Maria. Thanks for all the time you have spent on this and sorry for making your task more difficult. Chuck From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 7:06 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: James M. Bladel; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Chuck, I incorporated them verbatim. Not sure what the issue is. On 11 December 2013 19:00, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: One more thing on this. I was comfortable with the changes in wording that James & I agreed to previously. What happened to that? Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM To: James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments James, I don't think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of the other criteria. In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the root problem, it is the symptom. We could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve the problem? We could reduce the time it takes to do a PDP? Would that be a measure of success? The original DNSO did that in policy work by having the GNSO Council act as a legislative body. It's easy to do things faster in a top-down management model. I am willing to consider other wording but I have a serious problem with the wording that is in the latest version Maria distributed. I think it undermines the other points we make. Chuck From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Chuck: I'm not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your edits. Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack- of time efficiency as the primary flaw in the process. If we are to address those internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above the other concerns. Thanks- J. From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 To: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Thanks Maria. Regarding '13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective': . I don't agree with this statement in the second paragraph: "So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness is currently the most pressing." I don't think it is the most pressing criterion but I do believe that is one of several that must be focused on. I would be much more comfortable if we changed the sentence to something like this: "So while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, time-effectiveness needs to be addressed." . Along the same line, I would change the last paragraph as follows: "Additionally we suggest that while one concern is time-effectiveness and the fact that the PDPs simply takes tootake a lot of time long, reference might be also made in your recommendations to other, more qualitative measures of the effectiveness of policy-making; deliberativeness, participation and support." In my opinion, it is critical to focus on all the criteria together rather than isolating one as the most important. As our other comments on this suggest, that risks sacrificing qualitative criteria. Do we want to compromise the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model to make PDPs more time efficient? I don't think so. I believe what we want to do is to find ways to improve time-effectiveness while still making sure that PDPs are bottom-up and multi-stakeholder. For example, the qualitative criteria of participation and support are areas where improvements could be made to improve time-effectiveness. Finally, I think that categorizing time-effectiveness as the most pressing criterion is counter to what we say later in our comments: "we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO". Chuck From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:26 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Hi all, Here's a revised draft response to the ATRT2 recommendations. I've incorporated all the comments and changed the focus re time-effectiveness to something I hope is closer to our area of agreement. If there are more comments between now and the deadline of 23.50 UTC tonight, I'll work them in tomorrow. It would be helpful if you can make comments on the new draft, V.3, but if you're already knee-deep in V.2, then don't worry; just send comments on that one instead. Track changes and clean versions attached. Best, m On 11 December 2013 17:02, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Thanks Alan. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not being prescriptive about. The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We (the GNSO and community) are making good progress toward coming up with methodologies which could improve the policy development process, but many of them will require funding (whether for services, travel or additional ICANN staff). What we are looking for is a commitment to put money into the process so that some of these pipe-dreams can become a reality. Alan At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Alan. Regarding the recommendations about using facilitators, did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN staff, community volunteers trained by ICANN or paid service providers? I understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than one the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the recommendation being discussed.
First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess. This recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in the body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my fingers crossed) be far more cohesive.
The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body of the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve the Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the final recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy processes (not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does allow for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider deliberations as well.
On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section was effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped for) by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are very welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more effectively, and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted, we just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up to speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of getting more people involved and not boring those who already understand the basic issues.
The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted in Buenos Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this. The current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional services to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for when such options may be invoked. Such services could include training to enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation, mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being developed, it will likely be further revised.
The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and has been incorporated.
The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you to get them submitted prior to the deadline.
As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and Implementation WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what we are currently calling "implementation", it could be referred back to the GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways of coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably delay the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we are talking about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.
Alan
Hi All, Thanks for a good job, the latest version - as far as I can see – is a considerable improvement over the earlier draft. That’s my positive part of comments… I however also agree with Mikey, etc that we all share the desire to get things done in a timely way but may I add that this also means that we need enough time to discuss the issues with our respective groups in detail. Seeing suggestions of late changes when we only have a few hours to our Council meeting is not the best way - It is simply not realistic for councilors to obtain feedback and approval from their constituencies in such a short time frame on such an extensive report. Secondly, I don’t agree with the strong reaction against the first bullet of section 13.4 (10.4 in Exec Summary) which deals with the situation in which “the GNSO cannot come to closure on a specific issue in a specified time.” This is a real and recurring problem and the reaction in the draft document seems quite defensive and not as constructive as it could be. A first step might be for the council to affirm in its comments that this is a problem, and that it is best solved, not by unilateral fiat from the Board (which is not even what is suggested in the report), but by GNSO (in the first instance) and the Board having a process in place to deal with it (which builds on what actually is suggested in the report). Best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 11 december 2013, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com> skrev:
Hi all,
Here's a revised draft response to the ATRT2 recommendations. I've incorporated all the comments and changed the focus re time-effectiveness to something I hope is closer to our area of agreement.
If there are more comments between now and the deadline of 23.50 UTC tonight, I'll work them in tomorrow.
It would be helpful if you can make comments on the new draft, V.3, but if you're already knee-deep in V.2, then don't worry; just send comments on that one instead.
Track changes and clean versions attached.
Best, m
On 11 December 2013 17:02, Gomes, Chuck <<cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
Thanks Alan.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:<alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not being prescriptive about.
The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We (the GNSO and community) are making good progress toward coming up with methodologies which could improve the policy development process, but many of them will require funding (whether for services, travel or additional ICANN staff). What we are looking for is a commitment to put money into the process so that some of these pipe-dreams can become a reality.
Alan
At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Alan. Regarding the recommendations about using facilitators, did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN staff, community volunteers trained by ICANN or paid service providers? I understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than one the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:<alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the recommendation being discussed.
First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess. This recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in the body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my fingers crossed) be far more cohesive.
The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body of the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve the Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the final recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy processes (not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does allow for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider deliberations as well.
On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section was effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped for) by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are very welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more effectively, and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted, we just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up to speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of getting more people involved and not boring those who already understand the basic issues.
The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted in Buenos Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this. The current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional services to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for when such options may be invoked. Such services could include training to enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation, mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being developed, it will likely be further revised.
The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and has been incorporated.
The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you to get them submitted prior to the deadline.
As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and Implementation WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what we are currently calling "implementation", it could be referred back to the GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways of coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably delay the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we are talking about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.
Alan
participants (10)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Berry Cobb -
Gomes, Chuck -
James M. Bladel -
John Berard -
Jonathan Robinson -
Maria Farrell -
Mike O'Connor -
Petter Rindforth -
Reed, Daniel A