Dear all, Here are some draft comments on the ATRT2 recommendations re. the GNSO. Mikey and David - I know you two kindly volunteered to help out with this. Can you particularly take a look? Also, there's a need for a para or bullet point list summarising relevant work the GNSO is already doing, e.g. the SCI? or Staff paper on improving the PDP? I'm drawing a blank on the other initiatives. Can someone please rustle up a list of them? This needs to be submitted by the 12th, so comments please ASAP. All the best, Maria Dear members of the Acountability and Transparency Review Team (2), The GNSO Council thanks you for the outcome-oriented analysis and recommendations in the ATRT2 Draft Recommendations of 21 November, 2013. We particularly appreciate the time and care that went into these recommendations, the commissioning of useful research and, especially, the efforts made by the ATRT2 and its leadership to promote awareness and dialogue about the recommendations at the Buenos Aires meeting. The Council’s input focuses on recommendations regarding the GNSO PDP. Broadly, we strongly support the call for broader and more active working group participation and earlier involvement of the GAC, and will work hard to implement final recommendations on these issues. *New recommendations arising from issues not addressed by ATRT1 Recommendations* *10.1 on developing funded options for professional facilitators to help GNSO PDP Working Groups* While some Councilors supported this suggestion, others were concerned that facilitators may not always be appropriate in the multi-stakeholder model. Broadly, we believe this is an option that could be considered in the context of the ATRT2’s recommendation to develop explicit guidelines for when to use facilitators. Agreement should be elicited by Working Group participants to use facilitators on a case by case basis, and with a clear understanding of facilitators’ roles. *10.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs* We support this recommendation and the development of guidelines for when F2F meetings may be required and justified. However, we do note that there is a variety of ability amongst Working Group participants to travel to F2F meetings. Many volunteers cannot leave work or family to do so, for example. We suggest that if intercessional F2F meetings are used more often that ICANN consider adopting the IETF approach that agreements reached during F2F meetings are then subject to consideration by mailing list members. *10.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective* As with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO. There is not one but three fundamental ways to judge PDP performance: time, participativeness and agreement. Time measures only how long it took to get to a policy; the second two are effectively proxy measures for its quality. Stressing too much the most obvious performance variable could have the unintentional consequence of sacrificing quality. Further, increasing the pressure of time can result in forced compromises that quickly fall apart or result in participants end-running to the Board, a phenomenon the report identifies. This undermines the legitimacy of the whole process. We suggest this recommendation be revised to stress more that ‘time-effective’ encompasses efficient use of participants’ time – including preparation for and chairing of calls and follow-up activities, etc. – rather than focusing on a single, quantifiable metric that can draw attention away from other qualities. *10.2 on the GAC, with the GNSO, developing ways to input to PDP Working Groups* We strongly support this recommendation and are eager to work with the GAC on ways to implement it. *10.3 on the Board and GNSO chartering a strategic initiative to broaden participation in GNSO PDPs* We broadly support this recommendation and welcomed the detailed quantitative analysis provided in support of the need to broaden participation. We do also note staff’s observation that in some cases input to public comments may appear to be from, for example, the US but has been submitted by a US-based individual on behalf of a peak organization that consulted more widely. Nonetheless, there is clearly a need to both broaden and deepen participation. Some of our councilors suggest that as well as outreach to increase participation from outside of ICANN, we should also do ‘in reach’ to deepen participation by individuals already involved in ICANN but who have never participated in a Working Group. We ask that the ATRT2 may consider this suggestion. *10.4 on the Board stating a process for setting gTLD policies when the GNSO ‘cannot come to closure on a specific issue within a specified time-frame’.* We share the concerns stated by others that the couching of this recommendation may unwittingly undermine the multi-stakeholder model in ICANN. Policy-making can take longer than is predictable or desirable, but nonetheless be effective in its deliberativeness, output and degree of support. This recommendation seems to perpetuate a belief that the GNSO – the engine of gTLD policy development and the only part of ICANN driven by carefully balanced stakeholder decision-making – is too slow and argumentative. That belief can drive some ICANN participants to go around the GNSO and straight to the Board, undermining the multi-stakeholder process and ICANN’s *raison d’etre. *While Board deadlines can sometimes help overcome intractable differences, it’s not clear how to ensure constructive negotiation within the PDP without later recourse to the Board or GAC. This recommendation seems to contradict the research report finding that there is both a conflict but ultimately a ‘sweet spot’ to be found between policy-making being sufficiently participatory and speedy. We suggest that this recommendation be revised to help the GNSO find that sweet spot – which will change from one issue to the next and is not a ‘one size fits all’ amount of pre-specified time. For example, the recommendation could be re-drafted to suggest the Board interact formally or informally with the GNSO to find out more about PDPs that appear to be going too slowly; to find out if that is indeed the case, and to constructively offer advice or encouragement to assist. Recommendation 10.4 also says the Board should note under what conditions it believes it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board acceptance. We support this part of the recommendation. Recommendation 10.4 also says there should be an additional step in the PDP Comment Process that allows those whose comments have been synthesized improperly to request changes. We support this recommendation, while noting it will add some time to the process. Perhaps it could be implemented on an ‘if/then’ basis, i.e. inserting an opportunity for commenters to raise their initial concerns to trigger taking the additional step of requesting changes to the summary. However, we also suggest replacing the term ‘improperly’ with ‘incorrectly’ or ‘wrongly’, as the word ‘improper’ has connotations of wrongdoing rather than inaccuracy, which don’t seem relevant here. *Summary of work the GNSO is already doing* *…* 4. Summarise if appropriate Full text of the report is here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13-...
hi Maria, here's a redline markup for you all to take a look at. i love your draft and don't disagree with anything in it. i'm trying to amplify and refine. feel free to back out anything that puts you on edge. mikey On Dec 9, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
Here are some draft comments on the ATRT2 recommendations re. the GNSO.
Mikey and David - I know you two kindly volunteered to help out with this. Can you particularly take a look?
Also, there's a need for a para or bullet point list summarising relevant work the GNSO is already doing, e.g. the SCI? or Staff paper on improving the PDP? I'm drawing a blank on the other initiatives. Can someone please rustle up a list of them?
This needs to be submitted by the 12th, so comments please ASAP.
All the best, Maria
Dear members of the Acountability and Transparency Review Team (2),
The GNSO Council thanks you for the outcome-oriented analysis and recommendations in the ATRT2 Draft Recommendations of 21 November, 2013. We particularly appreciate the time and care that went into these recommendations, the commissioning of useful research and, especially, the efforts made by the ATRT2 and its leadership to promote awareness and dialogue about the recommendations at the Buenos Aires meeting.
The Council’s input focuses on recommendations regarding the GNSO PDP. Broadly, we strongly support the call for broader and more active working group participation and earlier involvement of the GAC, and will work hard to implement final recommendations on these issues.
New recommendations arising from issues not addressed by ATRT1 Recommendations
10.1 on developing funded options for professional facilitators to help GNSO PDP Working Groups
While some Councilors supported this suggestion, others were concerned that facilitators may not always be appropriate in the multi-stakeholder model. Broadly, we believe this is an option that could be considered in the context of the ATRT2’s recommendation to develop explicit guidelines for when to use facilitators. Agreement should be elicited by Working Group participants to use facilitators on a case by case basis, and with a clear understanding of facilitators’ roles.
10.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs
We support this recommendation and the development of guidelines for when F2F meetings may be required and justified. However, we do note that there is a variety of ability amongst Working Group participants to travel to F2F meetings. Many volunteers cannot leave work or family to do so, for example. We suggest that if intercessional F2F meetings are used more often that ICANN consider adopting the IETF approach that agreements reached during F2F meetings are then subject to consideration by mailing list members.
10.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective
As with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO. There is not one but three fundamental ways to judge PDP performance: time, participativeness and agreement. Time measures only how long it took to get to a policy; the second two are effectively proxy measures for its quality. Stressing too much the most obvious performance variable could have the unintentional consequence of sacrificing quality. Further, increasing the pressure of time can result in forced compromises that quickly fall apart or result in participants end-running to the Board, a phenomenon the report identifies. This undermines the legitimacy of the whole process.
We suggest this recommendation be revised to stress more that ‘time-effective’ encompasses efficient use of participants’ time – including preparation for and chairing of calls and follow-up activities, etc. – rather than focusing on a single, quantifiable metric that can draw attention away from other qualities.
10.2 on the GAC, with the GNSO, developing ways to input to PDP Working Groups
We strongly support this recommendation and are eager to work with the GAC on ways to implement it.
10.3 on the Board and GNSO chartering a strategic initiative to broaden participation in GNSO PDPs
We broadly support this recommendation and welcomed the detailed quantitative analysis provided in support of the need to broaden participation. We do also note staff’s observation that in some cases input to public comments may appear to be from, for example, the US but has been submitted by a US-based individual on behalf of a peak organization that consulted more widely.
Nonetheless, there is clearly a need to both broaden and deepen participation. Some of our councilors suggest that as well as outreach to increase participation from outside of ICANN, we should also do ‘in reach’ to deepen participation by individuals already involved in ICANN but who have never participated in a Working Group. We ask that the ATRT2 may consider this suggestion.
10.4 on the Board stating a process for setting gTLD policies when the GNSO ‘cannot come to closure on a specific issue within a specified time-frame’.
We share the concerns stated by others that the couching of this recommendation may unwittingly undermine the multi-stakeholder model in ICANN. Policy-making can take longer than is predictable or desirable, but nonetheless be effective in its deliberativeness, output and degree of support. This recommendation seems to perpetuate a belief that the GNSO – the engine of gTLD policy development and the only part of ICANN driven by carefully balanced stakeholder decision-making – is too slow and argumentative. That belief can drive some ICANN participants to go around the GNSO and straight to the Board, undermining the multi-stakeholder process and ICANN’s raison d’etre. While Board deadlines can sometimes help overcome intractable differences, it’s not clear how to ensure constructive negotiation within the PDP without later recourse to the Board or GAC.
This recommendation seems to contradict the research report finding that there is both a conflict but ultimately a ‘sweet spot’ to be found between policy-making being sufficiently participatory and speedy. We suggest that this recommendation be revised to help the GNSO find that sweet spot – which will change from one issue to the next and is not a ‘one size fits all’ amount of pre-specified time. For example, the recommendation could be re-drafted to suggest the Board interact formally or informally with the GNSO to find out more about PDPs that appear to be going too slowly; to find out if that is indeed the case, and to constructively offer advice or encouragement to assist.
Recommendation 10.4 also says the Board should note under what conditions it believes it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board acceptance. We support this part of the recommendation.
Recommendation 10.4 also says there should be an additional step in the PDP Comment Process that allows those whose comments have been synthesized improperly to request changes. We support this recommendation, while noting it will add some time to the process. Perhaps it could be implemented on an ‘if/then’ basis, i.e. inserting an opportunity for commenters to raise their initial concerns to trigger taking the additional step of requesting changes to the summary. However, we also suggest replacing the term ‘improperly’ with ‘incorrectly’ or ‘wrongly’, as the word ‘improper’ has connotations of wrongdoing rather than inaccuracy, which don’t seem relevant here.
Summary of work the GNSO is already doing
…
4. Summarise if appropriate
Full text of the report is here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13-...
<ATRT2 draft GNSO Council response.docx>
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Hi Mikey, These changes look great to me, thanks a million. Does anyone else plan to chip in? We have an agenda item on this on Thursday's meeting, and a submission deadline on Friday. All the best, Maria On 10 December 2013 16:31, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
hi Maria,
here's a redline markup for you all to take a look at. i love your draft and don't disagree with anything in it. i'm trying to amplify and refine. feel free to back out anything that puts you on edge.
mikey
On Dec 9, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
Here are some draft comments on the ATRT2 recommendations re. the GNSO.
Mikey and David - I know you two kindly volunteered to help out with this. Can you particularly take a look?
Also, there's a need for a para or bullet point list summarising relevant work the GNSO is already doing, e.g. the SCI? or Staff paper on improving the PDP? I'm drawing a blank on the other initiatives. Can someone please rustle up a list of them?
This needs to be submitted by the 12th, so comments please ASAP.
All the best, Maria
Dear members of the Acountability and Transparency Review Team (2),
The GNSO Council thanks you for the outcome-oriented analysis and recommendations in the ATRT2 Draft Recommendations of 21 November, 2013. We particularly appreciate the time and care that went into these recommendations, the commissioning of useful research and, especially, the efforts made by the ATRT2 and its leadership to promote awareness and dialogue about the recommendations at the Buenos Aires meeting.
The Council’s input focuses on recommendations regarding the GNSO PDP. Broadly, we strongly support the call for broader and more active working group participation and earlier involvement of the GAC, and will work hard to implement final recommendations on these issues.
*New recommendations arising from issues not addressed by ATRT1 Recommendations*
*10.1 on developing funded options for professional facilitators to help GNSO PDP Working Groups*
While some Councilors supported this suggestion, others were concerned that facilitators may not always be appropriate in the multi-stakeholder model. Broadly, we believe this is an option that could be considered in the context of the ATRT2’s recommendation to develop explicit guidelines for when to use facilitators. Agreement should be elicited by Working Group participants to use facilitators on a case by case basis, and with a clear understanding of facilitators’ roles.
*10.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs*
We support this recommendation and the development of guidelines for when F2F meetings may be required and justified. However, we do note that there is a variety of ability amongst Working Group participants to travel to F2F meetings. Many volunteers cannot leave work or family to do so, for example. We suggest that if intercessional F2F meetings are used more often that ICANN consider adopting the IETF approach that agreements reached during F2F meetings are then subject to consideration by mailing list members.
*10.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective*
As with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO. There is not one but three fundamental ways to judge PDP performance: time, participativeness and agreement. Time measures only how long it took to get to a policy; the second two are effectively proxy measures for its quality. Stressing too much the most obvious performance variable could have the unintentional consequence of sacrificing quality. Further, increasing the pressure of time can result in forced compromises that quickly fall apart or result in participants end-running to the Board, a phenomenon the report identifies. This undermines the legitimacy of the whole process.
We suggest this recommendation be revised to stress more that ‘time-effective’ encompasses efficient use of participants’ time – including preparation for and chairing of calls and follow-up activities, etc. – rather than focusing on a single, quantifiable metric that can draw attention away from other qualities.
*10.2 on the GAC, with the GNSO, developing ways to input to PDP Working Groups*
We strongly support this recommendation and are eager to work with the GAC on ways to implement it.
*10.3 on the Board and GNSO chartering a strategic initiative to broaden participation in GNSO PDPs*
We broadly support this recommendation and welcomed the detailed quantitative analysis provided in support of the need to broaden participation. We do also note staff’s observation that in some cases input to public comments may appear to be from, for example, the US but has been submitted by a US-based individual on behalf of a peak organization that consulted more widely.
Nonetheless, there is clearly a need to both broaden and deepen participation. Some of our councilors suggest that as well as outreach to increase participation from outside of ICANN, we should also do ‘in reach’ to deepen participation by individuals already involved in ICANN but who have never participated in a Working Group. We ask that the ATRT2 may consider this suggestion.
*10.4 on the Board stating a process for setting gTLD policies when the GNSO ‘cannot come to closure on a specific issue within a specified time-frame’.*
We share the concerns stated by others that the couching of this recommendation may unwittingly undermine the multi-stakeholder model in ICANN. Policy-making can take longer than is predictable or desirable, but nonetheless be effective in its deliberativeness, output and degree of support. This recommendation seems to perpetuate a belief that the GNSO – the engine of gTLD policy development and the only part of ICANN driven by carefully balanced stakeholder decision-making – is too slow and argumentative. That belief can drive some ICANN participants to go around the GNSO and straight to the Board, undermining the multi-stakeholder process and ICANN’s *raison d’etre. *While Board deadlines can sometimes help overcome intractable differences, it’s not clear how to ensure constructive negotiation within the PDP without later recourse to the Board or GAC.
This recommendation seems to contradict the research report finding that there is both a conflict but ultimately a ‘sweet spot’ to be found between policy-making being sufficiently participatory and speedy. We suggest that this recommendation be revised to help the GNSO find that sweet spot – which will change from one issue to the next and is not a ‘one size fits all’ amount of pre-specified time. For example, the recommendation could be re-drafted to suggest the Board interact formally or informally with the GNSO to find out more about PDPs that appear to be going too slowly; to find out if that is indeed the case, and to constructively offer advice or encouragement to assist.
Recommendation 10.4 also says the Board should note under what conditions it believes it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board acceptance. We support this part of the recommendation.
Recommendation 10.4 also says there should be an additional step in the PDP Comment Process that allows those whose comments have been synthesized improperly to request changes. We support this recommendation, while noting it will add some time to the process. Perhaps it could be implemented on an ‘if/then’ basis, i.e. inserting an opportunity for commenters to raise their initial concerns to trigger taking the additional step of requesting changes to the summary. However, we also suggest replacing the term ‘improperly’ with ‘incorrectly’ or ‘wrongly’, as the word ‘improper’ has connotations of wrongdoing rather than inaccuracy, which don’t seem relevant here.
*Summary of work the GNSO is already doing*
*…*
4. Summarise if appropriate
Full text of the report is here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13-...
<ATRT2 draft GNSO Council response.docx>
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
I support this version of the draft, except for the sentiments contained in the section regarding making the PDP more time effective. While I don’t dispute that elapsed time for a PDP is only one (among several) measure of the overall quality of the process, I strongly believe that in the “real world,” the slow pace of the PDP is a threat to the PDP, the GNSO and even the ICANN model itself. This isn’t just alarmist thinking on my part — the multi-year average TTL for a PDP represents a significant barrier to wider participation from volunteers (who can’t afford the commitment) and commercial organizations (who cannot justify it). It also provides a clear incentive for governments and other interests to seek faster paths to advance their agendas through ICANN, ensuring that urgent or controversial topics will immediately escalate to a Board/GAC interaction. In my opinion, the future of the BU/MSM is entirely dependent upon a PDP that is timely —and– results in quality outcomes. Thanks— J. From: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 10:41 To: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Hi Mikey, These changes look great to me, thanks a million. Does anyone else plan to chip in? We have an agenda item on this on Thursday's meeting, and a submission deadline on Friday. All the best, Maria On 10 December 2013 16:31, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> wrote: hi Maria, here's a redline markup for you all to take a look at. i love your draft and don't disagree with anything in it. i'm trying to amplify and refine. feel free to back out anything that puts you on edge. mikey On Dec 9, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear all, Here are some draft comments on the ATRT2 recommendations re. the GNSO. Mikey and David - I know you two kindly volunteered to help out with this. Can you particularly take a look? Also, there's a need for a para or bullet point list summarising relevant work the GNSO is already doing, e.g. the SCI? or Staff paper on improving the PDP? I'm drawing a blank on the other initiatives. Can someone please rustle up a list of them? This needs to be submitted by the 12th, so comments please ASAP. All the best, Maria Dear members of the Acountability and Transparency Review Team (2), The GNSO Council thanks you for the outcome-oriented analysis and recommendations in the ATRT2 Draft Recommendations of 21 November, 2013. We particularly appreciate the time and care that went into these recommendations, the commissioning of useful research and, especially, the efforts made by the ATRT2 and its leadership to promote awareness and dialogue about the recommendations at the Buenos Aires meeting. The Council’s input focuses on recommendations regarding the GNSO PDP. Broadly, we strongly support the call for broader and more active working group participation and earlier involvement of the GAC, and will work hard to implement final recommendations on these issues. New recommendations arising from issues not addressed by ATRT1 Recommendations 10.1 on developing funded options for professional facilitators to help GNSO PDP Working Groups While some Councilors supported this suggestion, others were concerned that facilitators may not always be appropriate in the multi-stakeholder model. Broadly, we believe this is an option that could be considered in the context of the ATRT2’s recommendation to develop explicit guidelines for when to use facilitators. Agreement should be elicited by Working Group participants to use facilitators on a case by case basis, and with a clear understanding of facilitators’ roles. 10.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs We support this recommendation and the development of guidelines for when F2F meetings may be required and justified. However, we do note that there is a variety of ability amongst Working Group participants to travel to F2F meetings. Many volunteers cannot leave work or family to do so, for example. We suggest that if intercessional F2F meetings are used more often that ICANN consider adopting the IETF approach that agreements reached during F2F meetings are then subject to consideration by mailing list members. 10.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective As with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO. There is not one but three fundamental ways to judge PDP performance: time, participativeness and agreement. Time measures only how long it took to get to a policy; the second two are effectively proxy measures for its quality. Stressing too much the most obvious performance variable could have the unintentional consequence of sacrificing quality. Further, increasing the pressure of time can result in forced compromises that quickly fall apart or result in participants end-running to the Board, a phenomenon the report identifies. This undermines the legitimacy of the whole process. We suggest this recommendation be revised to stress more that ‘time-effective’ encompasses efficient use of participants’ time – including preparation for and chairing of calls and follow-up activities, etc. – rather than focusing on a single, quantifiable metric that can draw attention away from other qualities. 10.2 on the GAC, with the GNSO, developing ways to input to PDP Working Groups We strongly support this recommendation and are eager to work with the GAC on ways to implement it. 10.3 on the Board and GNSO chartering a strategic initiative to broaden participation in GNSO PDPs We broadly support this recommendation and welcomed the detailed quantitative analysis provided in support of the need to broaden participation. We do also note staff’s observation that in some cases input to public comments may appear to be from, for example, the US but has been submitted by a US-based individual on behalf of a peak organization that consulted more widely. Nonetheless, there is clearly a need to both broaden and deepen participation. Some of our councilors suggest that as well as outreach to increase participation from outside of ICANN, we should also do ‘in reach’ to deepen participation by individuals already involved in ICANN but who have never participated in a Working Group. We ask that the ATRT2 may consider this suggestion. 10.4 on the Board stating a process for setting gTLD policies when the GNSO ‘cannot come to closure on a specific issue within a specified time-frame’. We share the concerns stated by others that the couching of this recommendation may unwittingly undermine the multi-stakeholder model in ICANN. Policy-making can take longer than is predictable or desirable, but nonetheless be effective in its deliberativeness, output and degree of support. This recommendation seems to perpetuate a belief that the GNSO – the engine of gTLD policy development and the only part of ICANN driven by carefully balanced stakeholder decision-making – is too slow and argumentative. That belief can drive some ICANN participants to go around the GNSO and straight to the Board, undermining the multi-stakeholder process and ICANN’s raison d’etre. While Board deadlines can sometimes help overcome intractable differences, it’s not clear how to ensure constructive negotiation within the PDP without later recourse to the Board or GAC. This recommendation seems to contradict the research report finding that there is both a conflict but ultimately a ‘sweet spot’ to be found between policy-making being sufficiently participatory and speedy. We suggest that this recommendation be revised to help the GNSO find that sweet spot – which will change from one issue to the next and is not a ‘one size fits all’ amount of pre-specified time. For example, the recommendation could be re-drafted to suggest the Board interact formally or informally with the GNSO to find out more about PDPs that appear to be going too slowly; to find out if that is indeed the case, and to constructively offer advice or encouragement to assist. Recommendation 10.4 also says the Board should note under what conditions it believes it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board acceptance. We support this part of the recommendation. Recommendation 10.4 also says there should be an additional step in the PDP Comment Process that allows those whose comments have been synthesized improperly to request changes. We support this recommendation, while noting it will add some time to the process. Perhaps it could be implemented on an ‘if/then’ basis, i.e. inserting an opportunity for commenters to raise their initial concerns to trigger taking the additional step of requesting changes to the summary. However, we also suggest replacing the term ‘improperly’ with ‘incorrectly’ or ‘wrongly’, as the word ‘improper’ has connotations of wrongdoing rather than inaccuracy, which don’t seem relevant here. Summary of work the GNSO is already doing … 4. Summarise if appropriate Full text of the report is here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13-... <ATRT2 draft GNSO Council response.docx> 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.)
James, It sounds like you are in agreement with the sentiments you flagged but would add some to them. In my reading of the comments I understand them to be saying that PDP measurement shouldn't focus so much on time that quality is sacrificed and you seem to say the same thing, i.e., "the future of the BU/MSM is entirely dependent upon a PDP that is timely -and- results in quality outcomes". If I am correct, how would you change the current wording? Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:58 PM To: Maria Farrell; Mike O'Connor Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments I support this version of the draft, except for the sentiments contained in the section regarding making the PDP more time effective. While I don't dispute that elapsed time for a PDP is only one (among several) measure of the overall quality of the process, I strongly believe that in the "real world," the slow pace of the PDP is a threat to the PDP, the GNSO and even the ICANN model itself. This isn't just alarmist thinking on my part - the multi-year average TTL for a PDP represents a significant barrier to wider participation from volunteers (who can't afford the commitment) and commercial organizations (who cannot justify it). It also provides a clear incentive for governments and other interests to seek faster paths to advance their agendas through ICANN, ensuring that urgent or controversial topics will immediately escalate to a Board/GAC interaction. In my opinion, the future of the BU/MSM is entirely dependent upon a PDP that is timely -and- results in quality outcomes. Thanks- J. From: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 10:41 To: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Hi Mikey, These changes look great to me, thanks a million. Does anyone else plan to chip in? We have an agenda item on this on Thursday's meeting, and a submission deadline on Friday. All the best, Maria On 10 December 2013 16:31, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> wrote: hi Maria, here's a redline markup for you all to take a look at. i love your draft and don't disagree with anything in it. i'm trying to amplify and refine. feel free to back out anything that puts you on edge. mikey On Dec 9, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear all, Here are some draft comments on the ATRT2 recommendations re. the GNSO. Mikey and David - I know you two kindly volunteered to help out with this. Can you particularly take a look? Also, there's a need for a para or bullet point list summarising relevant work the GNSO is already doing, e.g. the SCI? or Staff paper on improving the PDP? I'm drawing a blank on the other initiatives. Can someone please rustle up a list of them? This needs to be submitted by the 12th, so comments please ASAP. All the best, Maria Dear members of the Acountability and Transparency Review Team (2), The GNSO Council thanks you for the outcome-oriented analysis and recommendations in the ATRT2 Draft Recommendations of 21 November, 2013. We particularly appreciate the time and care that went into these recommendations, the commissioning of useful research and, especially, the efforts made by the ATRT2 and its leadership to promote awareness and dialogue about the recommendations at the Buenos Aires meeting. The Council's input focuses on recommendations regarding the GNSO PDP. Broadly, we strongly support the call for broader and more active working group participation and earlier involvement of the GAC, and will work hard to implement final recommendations on these issues. New recommendations arising from issues not addressed by ATRT1 Recommendations 10.1 on developing funded options for professional facilitators to help GNSO PDP Working Groups While some Councilors supported this suggestion, others were concerned that facilitators may not always be appropriate in the multi-stakeholder model. Broadly, we believe this is an option that could be considered in the context of the ATRT2's recommendation to develop explicit guidelines for when to use facilitators. Agreement should be elicited by Working Group participants to use facilitators on a case by case basis, and with a clear understanding of facilitators' roles. 10.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs We support this recommendation and the development of guidelines for when F2F meetings may be required and justified. However, we do note that there is a variety of ability amongst Working Group participants to travel to F2F meetings. Many volunteers cannot leave work or family to do so, for example. We suggest that if intercessional F2F meetings are used more often that ICANN consider adopting the IETF approach that agreements reached during F2F meetings are then subject to consideration by mailing list members. 10.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective As with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO. There is not one but three fundamental ways to judge PDP performance: time, participativeness and agreement. Time measures only how long it took to get to a policy; the second two are effectively proxy measures for its quality. Stressing too much the most obvious performance variable could have the unintentional consequence of sacrificing quality. Further, increasing the pressure of time can result in forced compromises that quickly fall apart or result in participants end-running to the Board, a phenomenon the report identifies. This undermines the legitimacy of the whole process. We suggest this recommendation be revised to stress more that 'time-effective' encompasses efficient use of participants' time - including preparation for and chairing of calls and follow-up activities, etc. - rather than focusing on a single, quantifiable metric that can draw attention away from other qualities. 10.2 on the GAC, with the GNSO, developing ways to input to PDP Working Groups We strongly support this recommendation and are eager to work with the GAC on ways to implement it. 10.3 on the Board and GNSO chartering a strategic initiative to broaden participation in GNSO PDPs We broadly support this recommendation and welcomed the detailed quantitative analysis provided in support of the need to broaden participation. We do also note staff's observation that in some cases input to public comments may appear to be from, for example, the US but has been submitted by a US-based individual on behalf of a peak organization that consulted more widely. Nonetheless, there is clearly a need to both broaden and deepen participation. Some of our councilors suggest that as well as outreach to increase participation from outside of ICANN, we should also do 'in reach' to deepen participation by individuals already involved in ICANN but who have never participated in a Working Group. We ask that the ATRT2 may consider this suggestion. 10.4 on the Board stating a process for setting gTLD policies when the GNSO 'cannot come to closure on a specific issue within a specified time-frame'. We share the concerns stated by others that the couching of this recommendation may unwittingly undermine the multi-stakeholder model in ICANN. Policy-making can take longer than is predictable or desirable, but nonetheless be effective in its deliberativeness, output and degree of support. This recommendation seems to perpetuate a belief that the GNSO - the engine of gTLD policy development and the only part of ICANN driven by carefully balanced stakeholder decision-making - is too slow and argumentative. That belief can drive some ICANN participants to go around the GNSO and straight to the Board, undermining the multi-stakeholder process and ICANN's raison d'etre. While Board deadlines can sometimes help overcome intractable differences, it's not clear how to ensure constructive negotiation within the PDP without later recourse to the Board or GAC. This recommendation seems to contradict the research report finding that there is both a conflict but ultimately a 'sweet spot' to be found between policy-making being sufficiently participatory and speedy. We suggest that this recommendation be revised to help the GNSO find that sweet spot - which will change from one issue to the next and is not a 'one size fits all' amount of pre-specified time. For example, the recommendation could be re-drafted to suggest the Board interact formally or informally with the GNSO to find out more about PDPs that appear to be going too slowly; to find out if that is indeed the case, and to constructively offer advice or encouragement to assist. Recommendation 10.4 also says the Board should note under what conditions it believes it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board acceptance. We support this part of the recommendation. Recommendation 10.4 also says there should be an additional step in the PDP Comment Process that allows those whose comments have been synthesized improperly to request changes. We support this recommendation, while noting it will add some time to the process. Perhaps it could be implemented on an 'if/then' basis, i.e. inserting an opportunity for commenters to raise their initial concerns to trigger taking the additional step of requesting changes to the summary. However, we also suggest replacing the term 'improperly' with 'incorrectly' or 'wrongly', as the word 'improper' has connotations of wrongdoing rather than inaccuracy, which don't seem relevant here. Summary of work the GNSO is already doing ... 4. Summarise if appropriate Full text of the report is here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13-... <ATRT2 draft GNSO Council response.docx> 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.)
Hi Chuck: Well, I started to mark up the text, but quickly realized that the entire paragraph focused solely on the dangers of focusing exclusively on elapsed PDP time. Perhaps a clean way to salvage this section would be to include an introductory sentence or two that captures my concerns below. How about we prepend something like this to the section: “In practical terms, the average time to complete a PDP represents a barrier to participation and undermines the ICANN model. The multi-year effort to participate in a PDP is a commitment that individuals often can’t afford and commercial organizations cannot justify. And the anticipate elapsed time makes the PDP an unattractive mechanism for addressing urgent or controversial matters, and provides incentives for parties to escalate these immediately to other structures, such as the Board or GAC." Thoughts? J. From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 13:07 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments James, It sounds like you are in agreement with the sentiments you flagged but would add some to them. In my reading of the comments I understand them to be saying that PDP measurement shouldn’t focus so much on time that quality is sacrificed and you seem to say the same thing, i.e., “the future of the BU/MSM is entirely dependent upon a PDP that is timely —and– results in quality outcomes”. If I am correct, how would you change the current wording? Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:58 PM To: Maria Farrell; Mike O'Connor Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments I support this version of the draft, except for the sentiments contained in the section regarding making the PDP more time effective. While I don’t dispute that elapsed time for a PDP is only one (among several) measure of the overall quality of the process, I strongly believe that in the “real world,” the slow pace of the PDP is a threat to the PDP, the GNSO and even the ICANN model itself. This isn’t just alarmist thinking on my part — the multi-year average TTL for a PDP represents a significant barrier to wider participation from volunteers (who can’t afford the commitment) and commercial organizations (who cannot justify it). It also provides a clear incentive for governments and other interests to seek faster paths to advance their agendas through ICANN, ensuring that urgent or controversial topics will immediately escalate to a Board/GAC interaction. In my opinion, the future of the BU/MSM is entirely dependent upon a PDP that is timely —and– results in quality outcomes. Thanks— J. From: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 10:41 To: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Hi Mikey, These changes look great to me, thanks a million. Does anyone else plan to chip in? We have an agenda item on this on Thursday's meeting, and a submission deadline on Friday. All the best, Maria On 10 December 2013 16:31, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> wrote: hi Maria, here's a redline markup for you all to take a look at. i love your draft and don't disagree with anything in it. i'm trying to amplify and refine. feel free to back out anything that puts you on edge. mikey On Dec 9, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear all, Here are some draft comments on the ATRT2 recommendations re. the GNSO. Mikey and David - I know you two kindly volunteered to help out with this. Can you particularly take a look? Also, there's a need for a para or bullet point list summarising relevant work the GNSO is already doing, e.g. the SCI? or Staff paper on improving the PDP? I'm drawing a blank on the other initiatives. Can someone please rustle up a list of them? This needs to be submitted by the 12th, so comments please ASAP. All the best, Maria Dear members of the Acountability and Transparency Review Team (2), The GNSO Council thanks you for the outcome-oriented analysis and recommendations in the ATRT2 Draft Recommendations of 21 November, 2013. We particularly appreciate the time and care that went into these recommendations, the commissioning of useful research and, especially, the efforts made by the ATRT2 and its leadership to promote awareness and dialogue about the recommendations at the Buenos Aires meeting. The Council’s input focuses on recommendations regarding the GNSO PDP. Broadly, we strongly support the call for broader and more active working group participation and earlier involvement of the GAC, and will work hard to implement final recommendations on these issues. New recommendations arising from issues not addressed by ATRT1 Recommendations 10.1 on developing funded options for professional facilitators to help GNSO PDP Working Groups While some Councilors supported this suggestion, others were concerned that facilitators may not always be appropriate in the multi-stakeholder model. Broadly, we believe this is an option that could be considered in the context of the ATRT2’s recommendation to develop explicit guidelines for when to use facilitators. Agreement should be elicited by Working Group participants to use facilitators on a case by case basis, and with a clear understanding of facilitators’ roles. 10.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs We support this recommendation and the development of guidelines for when F2F meetings may be required and justified. However, we do note that there is a variety of ability amongst Working Group participants to travel to F2F meetings. Many volunteers cannot leave work or family to do so, for example. We suggest that if intercessional F2F meetings are used more often that ICANN consider adopting the IETF approach that agreements reached during F2F meetings are then subject to consideration by mailing list members. 10.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective As with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO. There is not one but three fundamental ways to judge PDP performance: time, participativeness and agreement. Time measures only how long it took to get to a policy; the second two are effectively proxy measures for its quality. Stressing too much the most obvious performance variable could have the unintentional consequence of sacrificing quality. Further, increasing the pressure of time can result in forced compromises that quickly fall apart or result in participants end-running to the Board, a phenomenon the report identifies. This undermines the legitimacy of the whole process. We suggest this recommendation be revised to stress more that ‘time-effective’ encompasses efficient use of participants’ time – including preparation for and chairing of calls and follow-up activities, etc. – rather than focusing on a single, quantifiable metric that can draw attention away from other qualities. 10.2 on the GAC, with the GNSO, developing ways to input to PDP Working Groups We strongly support this recommendation and are eager to work with the GAC on ways to implement it. 10.3 on the Board and GNSO chartering a strategic initiative to broaden participation in GNSO PDPs We broadly support this recommendation and welcomed the detailed quantitative analysis provided in support of the need to broaden participation. We do also note staff’s observation that in some cases input to public comments may appear to be from, for example, the US but has been submitted by a US-based individual on behalf of a peak organization that consulted more widely. Nonetheless, there is clearly a need to both broaden and deepen participation. Some of our councilors suggest that as well as outreach to increase participation from outside of ICANN, we should also do ‘in reach’ to deepen participation by individuals already involved in ICANN but who have never participated in a Working Group. We ask that the ATRT2 may consider this suggestion. 10.4 on the Board stating a process for setting gTLD policies when the GNSO ‘cannot come to closure on a specific issue within a specified time-frame’. We share the concerns stated by others that the couching of this recommendation may unwittingly undermine the multi-stakeholder model in ICANN. Policy-making can take longer than is predictable or desirable, but nonetheless be effective in its deliberativeness, output and degree of support. This recommendation seems to perpetuate a belief that the GNSO – the engine of gTLD policy development and the only part of ICANN driven by carefully balanced stakeholder decision-making – is too slow and argumentative. That belief can drive some ICANN participants to go around the GNSO and straight to the Board, undermining the multi-stakeholder process and ICANN’s raison d’etre. While Board deadlines can sometimes help overcome intractable differences, it’s not clear how to ensure constructive negotiation within the PDP without later recourse to the Board or GAC. This recommendation seems to contradict the research report finding that there is both a conflict but ultimately a ‘sweet spot’ to be found between policy-making being sufficiently participatory and speedy. We suggest that this recommendation be revised to help the GNSO find that sweet spot – which will change from one issue to the next and is not a ‘one size fits all’ amount of pre-specified time. For example, the recommendation could be re-drafted to suggest the Board interact formally or informally with the GNSO to find out more about PDPs that appear to be going too slowly; to find out if that is indeed the case, and to constructively offer advice or encouragement to assist. Recommendation 10.4 also says the Board should note under what conditions it believes it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board acceptance. We support this part of the recommendation. Recommendation 10.4 also says there should be an additional step in the PDP Comment Process that allows those whose comments have been synthesized improperly to request changes. We support this recommendation, while noting it will add some time to the process. Perhaps it could be implemented on an ‘if/then’ basis, i.e. inserting an opportunity for commenters to raise their initial concerns to trigger taking the additional step of requesting changes to the summary. However, we also suggest replacing the term ‘improperly’ with ‘incorrectly’ or ‘wrongly’, as the word ‘improper’ has connotations of wrongdoing rather than inaccuracy, which don’t seem relevant here. Summary of work the GNSO is already doing … 4. Summarise if appropriate Full text of the report is here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13-... <ATRT2 draft GNSO Council response.docx> 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.)
Thanks James. Would it be okay to modify as follows? "In practical terms, we understand that the average time to complete a PDP can be a barrier to participation and can undermine the ICANN model. The multi-year effort to participate in a PDP is a commitment that individuals often can't afford and commercial organizations cannot justify. And the anticipated elapsed time makes the PDP an unattractive mechanism for addressing urgent or controversial matters, and provides incentives for parties to escalate these immediately to other structures, such as the Board or GAC. So we are supportive of efforts to make PDPs more time effective." "At the same time, as with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO. . . " Chuck From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 2:29 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell; Mike O'Connor Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Hi Chuck: Well, I started to mark up the text, but quickly realized that the entire paragraph focused solely on the dangers of focusing exclusively on elapsed PDP time. Perhaps a clean way to salvage this section would be to include an introductory sentence or two that captures my concerns below. How about we prepend something like this to the section: "In practical terms, the average time to complete a PDP represents a barrier to participation and undermines the ICANN model. The multi-year effort to participate in a PDP is a commitment that individuals often can't afford and commercial organizations cannot justify. And the anticipate elapsed time makes the PDP an unattractive mechanism for addressing urgent or controversial matters, and provides incentives for parties to escalate these immediately to other structures, such as the Board or GAC." Thoughts? J. From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 13:07 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments James, It sounds like you are in agreement with the sentiments you flagged but would add some to them. In my reading of the comments I understand them to be saying that PDP measurement shouldn't focus so much on time that quality is sacrificed and you seem to say the same thing, i.e., "the future of the BU/MSM is entirely dependent upon a PDP that is timely -and- results in quality outcomes". If I am correct, how would you change the current wording? Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:58 PM To: Maria Farrell; Mike O'Connor Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments I support this version of the draft, except for the sentiments contained in the section regarding making the PDP more time effective. While I don't dispute that elapsed time for a PDP is only one (among several) measure of the overall quality of the process, I strongly believe that in the "real world," the slow pace of the PDP is a threat to the PDP, the GNSO and even the ICANN model itself. This isn't just alarmist thinking on my part - the multi-year average TTL for a PDP represents a significant barrier to wider participation from volunteers (who can't afford the commitment) and commercial organizations (who cannot justify it). It also provides a clear incentive for governments and other interests to seek faster paths to advance their agendas through ICANN, ensuring that urgent or controversial topics will immediately escalate to a Board/GAC interaction. In my opinion, the future of the BU/MSM is entirely dependent upon a PDP that is timely -and- results in quality outcomes. Thanks- J. From: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 10:41 To: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Hi Mikey, These changes look great to me, thanks a million. Does anyone else plan to chip in? We have an agenda item on this on Thursday's meeting, and a submission deadline on Friday. All the best, Maria On 10 December 2013 16:31, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> wrote: hi Maria, here's a redline markup for you all to take a look at. i love your draft and don't disagree with anything in it. i'm trying to amplify and refine. feel free to back out anything that puts you on edge. mikey On Dec 9, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear all, Here are some draft comments on the ATRT2 recommendations re. the GNSO. Mikey and David - I know you two kindly volunteered to help out with this. Can you particularly take a look? Also, there's a need for a para or bullet point list summarising relevant work the GNSO is already doing, e.g. the SCI? or Staff paper on improving the PDP? I'm drawing a blank on the other initiatives. Can someone please rustle up a list of them? This needs to be submitted by the 12th, so comments please ASAP. All the best, Maria Dear members of the Acountability and Transparency Review Team (2), The GNSO Council thanks you for the outcome-oriented analysis and recommendations in the ATRT2 Draft Recommendations of 21 November, 2013. We particularly appreciate the time and care that went into these recommendations, the commissioning of useful research and, especially, the efforts made by the ATRT2 and its leadership to promote awareness and dialogue about the recommendations at the Buenos Aires meeting. The Council's input focuses on recommendations regarding the GNSO PDP. Broadly, we strongly support the call for broader and more active working group participation and earlier involvement of the GAC, and will work hard to implement final recommendations on these issues. New recommendations arising from issues not addressed by ATRT1 Recommendations 10.1 on developing funded options for professional facilitators to help GNSO PDP Working Groups While some Councilors supported this suggestion, others were concerned that facilitators may not always be appropriate in the multi-stakeholder model. Broadly, we believe this is an option that could be considered in the context of the ATRT2's recommendation to develop explicit guidelines for when to use facilitators. Agreement should be elicited by Working Group participants to use facilitators on a case by case basis, and with a clear understanding of facilitators' roles. 10.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs We support this recommendation and the development of guidelines for when F2F meetings may be required and justified. However, we do note that there is a variety of ability amongst Working Group participants to travel to F2F meetings. Many volunteers cannot leave work or family to do so, for example. We suggest that if intercessional F2F meetings are used more often that ICANN consider adopting the IETF approach that agreements reached during F2F meetings are then subject to consideration by mailing list members. 10.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective As with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO. There is not one but three fundamental ways to judge PDP performance: time, participativeness and agreement. Time measures only how long it took to get to a policy; the second two are effectively proxy measures for its quality. Stressing too much the most obvious performance variable could have the unintentional consequence of sacrificing quality. Further, increasing the pressure of time can result in forced compromises that quickly fall apart or result in participants end-running to the Board, a phenomenon the report identifies. This undermines the legitimacy of the whole process. We suggest this recommendation be revised to stress more that 'time-effective' encompasses efficient use of participants' time - including preparation for and chairing of calls and follow-up activities, etc. - rather than focusing on a single, quantifiable metric that can draw attention away from other qualities. 10.2 on the GAC, with the GNSO, developing ways to input to PDP Working Groups We strongly support this recommendation and are eager to work with the GAC on ways to implement it. 10.3 on the Board and GNSO chartering a strategic initiative to broaden participation in GNSO PDPs We broadly support this recommendation and welcomed the detailed quantitative analysis provided in support of the need to broaden participation. We do also note staff's observation that in some cases input to public comments may appear to be from, for example, the US but has been submitted by a US-based individual on behalf of a peak organization that consulted more widely. Nonetheless, there is clearly a need to both broaden and deepen participation. Some of our councilors suggest that as well as outreach to increase participation from outside of ICANN, we should also do 'in reach' to deepen participation by individuals already involved in ICANN but who have never participated in a Working Group. We ask that the ATRT2 may consider this suggestion. 10.4 on the Board stating a process for setting gTLD policies when the GNSO 'cannot come to closure on a specific issue within a specified time-frame'. We share the concerns stated by others that the couching of this recommendation may unwittingly undermine the multi-stakeholder model in ICANN. Policy-making can take longer than is predictable or desirable, but nonetheless be effective in its deliberativeness, output and degree of support. This recommendation seems to perpetuate a belief that the GNSO - the engine of gTLD policy development and the only part of ICANN driven by carefully balanced stakeholder decision-making - is too slow and argumentative. That belief can drive some ICANN participants to go around the GNSO and straight to the Board, undermining the multi-stakeholder process and ICANN's raison d'etre. While Board deadlines can sometimes help overcome intractable differences, it's not clear how to ensure constructive negotiation within the PDP without later recourse to the Board or GAC. This recommendation seems to contradict the research report finding that there is both a conflict but ultimately a 'sweet spot' to be found between policy-making being sufficiently participatory and speedy. We suggest that this recommendation be revised to help the GNSO find that sweet spot - which will change from one issue to the next and is not a 'one size fits all' amount of pre-specified time. For example, the recommendation could be re-drafted to suggest the Board interact formally or informally with the GNSO to find out more about PDPs that appear to be going too slowly; to find out if that is indeed the case, and to constructively offer advice or encouragement to assist. Recommendation 10.4 also says the Board should note under what conditions it believes it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board acceptance. We support this part of the recommendation. Recommendation 10.4 also says there should be an additional step in the PDP Comment Process that allows those whose comments have been synthesized improperly to request changes. We support this recommendation, while noting it will add some time to the process. Perhaps it could be implemented on an 'if/then' basis, i.e. inserting an opportunity for commenters to raise their initial concerns to trigger taking the additional step of requesting changes to the summary. However, we also suggest replacing the term 'improperly' with 'incorrectly' or 'wrongly', as the word 'improper' has connotations of wrongdoing rather than inaccuracy, which don't seem relevant here. Summary of work the GNSO is already doing ... 4. Summarise if appropriate Full text of the report is here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13-... <ATRT2 draft GNSO Council response.docx> 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.)
Thanks, Chuck. I support those changes. J. From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 13:50 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Cc: "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 James. Would it be okay to modify as follows? “In practical terms, we understand that the average time to complete a PDP can be a barrier to participation and can undermine the ICANN model. The multi-year effort to participate in a PDP is a commitment that individuals often can’t afford and commercial organizations cannot justify. And the anticipated elapsed time makes the PDP an unattractive mechanism for addressing urgent or controversial matters, and provides incentives for parties to escalate these immediately to other structures, such as the Board or GAC. So we are supportive of efforts to make PDPs more time effective.” “At the same time, as with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO. . . ” Chuck From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 2:29 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell; Mike O'Connor Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Hi Chuck: Well, I started to mark up the text, but quickly realized that the entire paragraph focused solely on the dangers of focusing exclusively on elapsed PDP time. Perhaps a clean way to salvage this section would be to include an introductory sentence or two that captures my concerns below. How about we prepend something like this to the section: “In practical terms, the average time to complete a PDP represents a barrier to participation and undermines the ICANN model. The multi-year effort to participate in a PDP is a commitment that individuals often can’t afford and commercial organizations cannot justify. And the anticipate elapsed time makes the PDP an unattractive mechanism for addressing urgent or controversial matters, and provides incentives for parties to escalate these immediately to other structures, such as the Board or GAC." Thoughts? J. From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 13:07 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments James, It sounds like you are in agreement with the sentiments you flagged but would add some to them. In my reading of the comments I understand them to be saying that PDP measurement shouldn’t focus so much on time that quality is sacrificed and you seem to say the same thing, i.e., “the future of the BU/MSM is entirely dependent upon a PDP that is timely —and– results in quality outcomes”. If I am correct, how would you change the current wording? Chuck From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:58 PM To: Maria Farrell; Mike O'Connor Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments I support this version of the draft, except for the sentiments contained in the section regarding making the PDP more time effective. While I don’t dispute that elapsed time for a PDP is only one (among several) measure of the overall quality of the process, I strongly believe that in the “real world,” the slow pace of the PDP is a threat to the PDP, the GNSO and even the ICANN model itself. This isn’t just alarmist thinking on my part — the multi-year average TTL for a PDP represents a significant barrier to wider participation from volunteers (who can’t afford the commitment) and commercial organizations (who cannot justify it). It also provides a clear incentive for governments and other interests to seek faster paths to advance their agendas through ICANN, ensuring that urgent or controversial topics will immediately escalate to a Board/GAC interaction. In my opinion, the future of the BU/MSM is entirely dependent upon a PDP that is timely —and– results in quality outcomes. Thanks— J. From: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 10:41 To: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Hi Mikey, These changes look great to me, thanks a million. Does anyone else plan to chip in? We have an agenda item on this on Thursday's meeting, and a submission deadline on Friday. All the best, Maria On 10 December 2013 16:31, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> wrote: hi Maria, here's a redline markup for you all to take a look at. i love your draft and don't disagree with anything in it. i'm trying to amplify and refine. feel free to back out anything that puts you on edge. mikey On Dec 9, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear all, Here are some draft comments on the ATRT2 recommendations re. the GNSO. Mikey and David - I know you two kindly volunteered to help out with this. Can you particularly take a look? Also, there's a need for a para or bullet point list summarising relevant work the GNSO is already doing, e.g. the SCI? or Staff paper on improving the PDP? I'm drawing a blank on the other initiatives. Can someone please rustle up a list of them? This needs to be submitted by the 12th, so comments please ASAP. All the best, Maria Dear members of the Acountability and Transparency Review Team (2), The GNSO Council thanks you for the outcome-oriented analysis and recommendations in the ATRT2 Draft Recommendations of 21 November, 2013. We particularly appreciate the time and care that went into these recommendations, the commissioning of useful research and, especially, the efforts made by the ATRT2 and its leadership to promote awareness and dialogue about the recommendations at the Buenos Aires meeting. The Council’s input focuses on recommendations regarding the GNSO PDP. Broadly, we strongly support the call for broader and more active working group participation and earlier involvement of the GAC, and will work hard to implement final recommendations on these issues. New recommendations arising from issues not addressed by ATRT1 Recommendations 10.1 on developing funded options for professional facilitators to help GNSO PDP Working Groups While some Councilors supported this suggestion, others were concerned that facilitators may not always be appropriate in the multi-stakeholder model. Broadly, we believe this is an option that could be considered in the context of the ATRT2’s recommendation to develop explicit guidelines for when to use facilitators. Agreement should be elicited by Working Group participants to use facilitators on a case by case basis, and with a clear understanding of facilitators’ roles. 10.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs We support this recommendation and the development of guidelines for when F2F meetings may be required and justified. However, we do note that there is a variety of ability amongst Working Group participants to travel to F2F meetings. Many volunteers cannot leave work or family to do so, for example. We suggest that if intercessional F2F meetings are used more often that ICANN consider adopting the IETF approach that agreements reached during F2F meetings are then subject to consideration by mailing list members. 10.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective As with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO. There is not one but three fundamental ways to judge PDP performance: time, participativeness and agreement. Time measures only how long it took to get to a policy; the second two are effectively proxy measures for its quality. Stressing too much the most obvious performance variable could have the unintentional consequence of sacrificing quality. Further, increasing the pressure of time can result in forced compromises that quickly fall apart or result in participants end-running to the Board, a phenomenon the report identifies. This undermines the legitimacy of the whole process. We suggest this recommendation be revised to stress more that ‘time-effective’ encompasses efficient use of participants’ time – including preparation for and chairing of calls and follow-up activities, etc. – rather than focusing on a single, quantifiable metric that can draw attention away from other qualities. 10.2 on the GAC, with the GNSO, developing ways to input to PDP Working Groups We strongly support this recommendation and are eager to work with the GAC on ways to implement it. 10.3 on the Board and GNSO chartering a strategic initiative to broaden participation in GNSO PDPs We broadly support this recommendation and welcomed the detailed quantitative analysis provided in support of the need to broaden participation. We do also note staff’s observation that in some cases input to public comments may appear to be from, for example, the US but has been submitted by a US-based individual on behalf of a peak organization that consulted more widely. Nonetheless, there is clearly a need to both broaden and deepen participation. Some of our councilors suggest that as well as outreach to increase participation from outside of ICANN, we should also do ‘in reach’ to deepen participation by individuals already involved in ICANN but who have never participated in a Working Group. We ask that the ATRT2 may consider this suggestion. 10.4 on the Board stating a process for setting gTLD policies when the GNSO ‘cannot come to closure on a specific issue within a specified time-frame’. We share the concerns stated by others that the couching of this recommendation may unwittingly undermine the multi-stakeholder model in ICANN. Policy-making can take longer than is predictable or desirable, but nonetheless be effective in its deliberativeness, output and degree of support. This recommendation seems to perpetuate a belief that the GNSO – the engine of gTLD policy development and the only part of ICANN driven by carefully balanced stakeholder decision-making – is too slow and argumentative. That belief can drive some ICANN participants to go around the GNSO and straight to the Board, undermining the multi-stakeholder process and ICANN’s raison d’etre. While Board deadlines can sometimes help overcome intractable differences, it’s not clear how to ensure constructive negotiation within the PDP without later recourse to the Board or GAC. This recommendation seems to contradict the research report finding that there is both a conflict but ultimately a ‘sweet spot’ to be found between policy-making being sufficiently participatory and speedy. We suggest that this recommendation be revised to help the GNSO find that sweet spot – which will change from one issue to the next and is not a ‘one size fits all’ amount of pre-specified time. For example, the recommendation could be re-drafted to suggest the Board interact formally or informally with the GNSO to find out more about PDPs that appear to be going too slowly; to find out if that is indeed the case, and to constructively offer advice or encouragement to assist. Recommendation 10.4 also says the Board should note under what conditions it believes it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board acceptance. We support this part of the recommendation. Recommendation 10.4 also says there should be an additional step in the PDP Comment Process that allows those whose comments have been synthesized improperly to request changes. We support this recommendation, while noting it will add some time to the process. Perhaps it could be implemented on an ‘if/then’ basis, i.e. inserting an opportunity for commenters to raise their initial concerns to trigger taking the additional step of requesting changes to the summary. However, we also suggest replacing the term ‘improperly’ with ‘incorrectly’ or ‘wrongly’, as the word ‘improper’ has connotations of wrongdoing rather than inaccuracy, which don’t seem relevant here. Summary of work the GNSO is already doing … 4. Summarise if appropriate Full text of the report is here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13-... <ATRT2 draft GNSO Council response.docx> 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.)
nicely done. i support this approach too. m On Dec 10, 2013, at 1:54 PM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Thanks, Chuck. I support those changes.
J.
From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 13:50 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Thanks James. Would it be okay to modify as follows?
“In practical terms, we understand that the average time to complete a PDP can be a barrier to participation and can undermine the ICANN model. The multi-year effort to participate in a PDP is a commitment that individuals often can’t afford and commercial organizations cannot justify. And the anticipated elapsed time makes the PDP an unattractive mechanism for addressing urgent or controversial matters, and provides incentives for parties to escalate these immediately to other structures, such as the Board or GAC. So we are supportive of efforts to make PDPs more time effective.”
“At the same time, as with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO. . . ”
Chuck
From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 2:29 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell; Mike O'Connor Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Hi Chuck:
Well, I started to mark up the text, but quickly realized that the entire paragraph focused solely on the dangers of focusing exclusively on elapsed PDP time.
Perhaps a clean way to salvage this section would be to include an introductory sentence or two that captures my concerns below. How about we prepend something like this to the section:
“In practical terms, the average time to complete a PDP represents a barrier to participation and undermines the ICANN model. The multi-year effort to participate in a PDP is a commitment that individuals often can’t afford and commercial organizations cannot justify. And the anticipate elapsed time makes the PDP an unattractive mechanism for addressing urgent or controversial matters, and provides incentives for parties to escalate these immediately to other structures, such as the Board or GAC."
Thoughts?
J.
From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 13:07 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com>, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
James,
It sounds like you are in agreement with the sentiments you flagged but would add some to them. In my reading of the comments I understand them to be saying that PDP measurement shouldn’t focus so much on time that quality is sacrificed and you seem to say the same thing, i.e., “the future of the BU/MSM is entirely dependent upon a PDP that is timely —and– results in quality outcomes”. If I am correct, how would you change the current wording?
Chuck
From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:58 PM To: Maria Farrell; Mike O'Connor Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I support this version of the draft, except for the sentiments contained in the section regarding making the PDP more time effective.
While I don’t dispute that elapsed time for a PDP is only one (among several) measure of the overall quality of the process, I strongly believe that in the “real world,” the slow pace of the PDP is a threat to the PDP, the GNSO and even the ICANN model itself.
This isn’t just alarmist thinking on my part — the multi-year average TTL for a PDP represents a significant barrier to wider participation from volunteers (who can’t afford the commitment) and commercial organizations (who cannot justify it). It also provides a clear incentive for governments and other interests to seek faster paths to advance their agendas through ICANN, ensuring that urgent or controversial topics will immediately escalate to a Board/GAC interaction.
In my opinion, the future of the BU/MSM is entirely dependent upon a PDP that is timely —and– results in quality outcomes.
Thanks—
J.
From: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 10:41 To: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Hi Mikey,
These changes look great to me, thanks a million.
Does anyone else plan to chip in?
We have an agenda item on this on Thursday's meeting, and a submission deadline on Friday.
All the best, Maria
On 10 December 2013 16:31, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote: hi Maria,
here's a redline markup for you all to take a look at. i love your draft and don't disagree with anything in it. i'm trying to amplify and refine. feel free to back out anything that puts you on edge.
mikey
On Dec 9, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
Here are some draft comments on the ATRT2 recommendations re. the GNSO.
Mikey and David - I know you two kindly volunteered to help out with this. Can you particularly take a look?
Also, there's a need for a para or bullet point list summarising relevant work the GNSO is already doing, e.g. the SCI? or Staff paper on improving the PDP? I'm drawing a blank on the other initiatives. Can someone please rustle up a list of them?
This needs to be submitted by the 12th, so comments please ASAP.
All the best, Maria
Dear members of the Acountability and Transparency Review Team (2),
The GNSO Council thanks you for the outcome-oriented analysis and recommendations in the ATRT2 Draft Recommendations of 21 November, 2013. We particularly appreciate the time and care that went into these recommendations, the commissioning of useful research and, especially, the efforts made by the ATRT2 and its leadership to promote awareness and dialogue about the recommendations at the Buenos Aires meeting.
The Council’s input focuses on recommendations regarding the GNSO PDP. Broadly, we strongly support the call for broader and more active working group participation and earlier involvement of the GAC, and will work hard to implement final recommendations on these issues.
New recommendations arising from issues not addressed by ATRT1 Recommendations
10.1 on developing funded options for professional facilitators to help GNSO PDP Working Groups
While some Councilors supported this suggestion, others were concerned that facilitators may not always be appropriate in the multi-stakeholder model. Broadly, we believe this is an option that could be considered in the context of the ATRT2’s recommendation to develop explicit guidelines for when to use facilitators. Agreement should be elicited by Working Group participants to use facilitators on a case by case basis, and with a clear understanding of facilitators’ roles.
10.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs
We support this recommendation and the development of guidelines for when F2F meetings may be required and justified. However, we do note that there is a variety of ability amongst Working Group participants to travel to F2F meetings. Many volunteers cannot leave work or family to do so, for example. We suggest that if intercessional F2F meetings are used more often that ICANN consider adopting the IETF approach that agreements reached during F2F meetings are then subject to consideration by mailing list members.
10.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective
As with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO. There is not one but three fundamental ways to judge PDP performance: time, participativeness and agreement. Time measures only how long it took to get to a policy; the second two are effectively proxy measures for its quality. Stressing too much the most obvious performance variable could have the unintentional consequence of sacrificing quality. Further, increasing the pressure of time can result in forced compromises that quickly fall apart or result in participants end-running to the Board, a phenomenon the report identifies. This undermines the legitimacy of the whole process.
We suggest this recommendation be revised to stress more that ‘time-effective’ encompasses efficient use of participants’ time – including preparation for and chairing of calls and follow-up activities, etc. – rather than focusing on a single, quantifiable metric that can draw attention away from other qualities.
10.2 on the GAC, with the GNSO, developing ways to input to PDP Working Groups
We strongly support this recommendation and are eager to work with the GAC on ways to implement it.
10.3 on the Board and GNSO chartering a strategic initiative to broaden participation in GNSO PDPs
We broadly support this recommendation and welcomed the detailed quantitative analysis provided in support of the need to broaden participation. We do also note staff’s observation that in some cases input to public comments may appear to be from, for example, the US but has been submitted by a US-based individual on behalf of a peak organization that consulted more widely.
Nonetheless, there is clearly a need to both broaden and deepen participation. Some of our councilors suggest that as well as outreach to increase participation from outside of ICANN, we should also do ‘in reach’ to deepen participation by individuals already involved in ICANN but who have never participated in a Working Group. We ask that the ATRT2 may consider this suggestion.
10.4 on the Board stating a process for setting gTLD policies when the GNSO ‘cannot come to closure on a specific issue within a specified time-frame’.
We share the concerns stated by others that the couching of this recommendation may unwittingly undermine the multi-stakeholder model in ICANN. Policy-making can take longer than is predictable or desirable, but nonetheless be effective in its deliberativeness, output and degree of support. This recommendation seems to perpetuate a belief that the GNSO – the engine of gTLD policy development and the only part of ICANN driven by carefully balanced stakeholder decision-making – is too slow and argumentative. That belief can drive some ICANN participants to go around the GNSO and straight to the Board, undermining the multi-stakeholder process and ICANN’s raison d’etre. While Board deadlines can sometimes help overcome intractable differences, it’s not clear how to ensure constructive negotiation within the PDP without later recourse to the Board or GAC.
This recommendation seems to contradict the research report finding that there is both a conflict but ultimately a ‘sweet spot’ to be found between policy-making being sufficiently participatory and speedy. We suggest that this recommendation be revised to help the GNSO find that sweet spot – which will change from one issue to the next and is not a ‘one size fits all’ amount of pre-specified time. For example, the recommendation could be re-drafted to suggest the Board interact formally or informally with the GNSO to find out more about PDPs that appear to be going too slowly; to find out if that is indeed the case, and to constructively offer advice or encouragement to assist.
Recommendation 10.4 also says the Board should note under what conditions it believes it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board acceptance. We support this part of the recommendation.
Recommendation 10.4 also says there should be an additional step in the PDP Comment Process that allows those whose comments have been synthesized improperly to request changes. We support this recommendation, while noting it will add some time to the process. Perhaps it could be implemented on an ‘if/then’ basis, i.e. inserting an opportunity for commenters to raise their initial concerns to trigger taking the additional step of requesting changes to the summary. However, we also suggest replacing the term ‘improperly’ with ‘incorrectly’ or ‘wrongly’, as the word ‘improper’ has connotations of wrongdoing rather than inaccuracy, which don’t seem relevant here.
Summary of work the GNSO is already doing
…
4. Summarise if appropriate
Full text of the report is here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13-...
<ATRT2 draft GNSO Council response.docx>
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
I know it pretty late to suggest a new comment and I will understand if it is too late but the following suggestion was made regarding “13.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs”: Each ICANN engagement center should have facilities to support videoconferencing and be able to support WG size teams. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 11:31 AM To: Maria Farrell Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments hi Maria, here's a redline markup for you all to take a look at. i love your draft and don't disagree with anything in it. i'm trying to amplify and refine. feel free to back out anything that puts you on edge. mikey On Dec 9, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear all, Here are some draft comments on the ATRT2 recommendations re. the GNSO. Mikey and David - I know you two kindly volunteered to help out with this. Can you particularly take a look? Also, there's a need for a para or bullet point list summarising relevant work the GNSO is already doing, e.g. the SCI? or Staff paper on improving the PDP? I'm drawing a blank on the other initiatives. Can someone please rustle up a list of them? This needs to be submitted by the 12th, so comments please ASAP. All the best, Maria Dear members of the Acountability and Transparency Review Team (2), The GNSO Council thanks you for the outcome-oriented analysis and recommendations in the ATRT2 Draft Recommendations of 21 November, 2013. We particularly appreciate the time and care that went into these recommendations, the commissioning of useful research and, especially, the efforts made by the ATRT2 and its leadership to promote awareness and dialogue about the recommendations at the Buenos Aires meeting. The Council’s input focuses on recommendations regarding the GNSO PDP. Broadly, we strongly support the call for broader and more active working group participation and earlier involvement of the GAC, and will work hard to implement final recommendations on these issues. New recommendations arising from issues not addressed by ATRT1 Recommendations 10.1 on developing funded options for professional facilitators to help GNSO PDP Working Groups While some Councilors supported this suggestion, others were concerned that facilitators may not always be appropriate in the multi-stakeholder model. Broadly, we believe this is an option that could be considered in the context of the ATRT2’s recommendation to develop explicit guidelines for when to use facilitators. Agreement should be elicited by Working Group participants to use facilitators on a case by case basis, and with a clear understanding of facilitators’ roles. 10.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs We support this recommendation and the development of guidelines for when F2F meetings may be required and justified. However, we do note that there is a variety of ability amongst Working Group participants to travel to F2F meetings. Many volunteers cannot leave work or family to do so, for example. We suggest that if intercessional F2F meetings are used more often that ICANN consider adopting the IETF approach that agreements reached during F2F meetings are then subject to consideration by mailing list members. 10.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective As with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO. There is not one but three fundamental ways to judge PDP performance: time, participativeness and agreement. Time measures only how long it took to get to a policy; the second two are effectively proxy measures for its quality. Stressing too much the most obvious performance variable could have the unintentional consequence of sacrificing quality. Further, increasing the pressure of time can result in forced compromises that quickly fall apart or result in participants end-running to the Board, a phenomenon the report identifies. This undermines the legitimacy of the whole process. We suggest this recommendation be revised to stress more that ‘time-effective’ encompasses efficient use of participants’ time – including preparation for and chairing of calls and follow-up activities, etc. – rather than focusing on a single, quantifiable metric that can draw attention away from other qualities. 10.2 on the GAC, with the GNSO, developing ways to input to PDP Working Groups We strongly support this recommendation and are eager to work with the GAC on ways to implement it. 10.3 on the Board and GNSO chartering a strategic initiative to broaden participation in GNSO PDPs We broadly support this recommendation and welcomed the detailed quantitative analysis provided in support of the need to broaden participation. We do also note staff’s observation that in some cases input to public comments may appear to be from, for example, the US but has been submitted by a US-based individual on behalf of a peak organization that consulted more widely. Nonetheless, there is clearly a need to both broaden and deepen participation. Some of our councilors suggest that as well as outreach to increase participation from outside of ICANN, we should also do ‘in reach’ to deepen participation by individuals already involved in ICANN but who have never participated in a Working Group. We ask that the ATRT2 may consider this suggestion. 10.4 on the Board stating a process for setting gTLD policies when the GNSO ‘cannot come to closure on a specific issue within a specified time-frame’. We share the concerns stated by others that the couching of this recommendation may unwittingly undermine the multi-stakeholder model in ICANN. Policy-making can take longer than is predictable or desirable, but nonetheless be effective in its deliberativeness, output and degree of support. This recommendation seems to perpetuate a belief that the GNSO – the engine of gTLD policy development and the only part of ICANN driven by carefully balanced stakeholder decision-making – is too slow and argumentative. That belief can drive some ICANN participants to go around the GNSO and straight to the Board, undermining the multi-stakeholder process and ICANN’s raison d’etre. While Board deadlines can sometimes help overcome intractable differences, it’s not clear how to ensure constructive negotiation within the PDP without later recourse to the Board or GAC. This recommendation seems to contradict the research report finding that there is both a conflict but ultimately a ‘sweet spot’ to be found between policy-making being sufficiently participatory and speedy. We suggest that this recommendation be revised to help the GNSO find that sweet spot – which will change from one issue to the next and is not a ‘one size fits all’ amount of pre-specified time. For example, the recommendation could be re-drafted to suggest the Board interact formally or informally with the GNSO to find out more about PDPs that appear to be going too slowly; to find out if that is indeed the case, and to constructively offer advice or encouragement to assist. Recommendation 10.4 also says the Board should note under what conditions it believes it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board acceptance. We support this part of the recommendation. Recommendation 10.4 also says there should be an additional step in the PDP Comment Process that allows those whose comments have been synthesized improperly to request changes. We support this recommendation, while noting it will add some time to the process. Perhaps it could be implemented on an ‘if/then’ basis, i.e. inserting an opportunity for commenters to raise their initial concerns to trigger taking the additional step of requesting changes to the summary. However, we also suggest replacing the term ‘improperly’ with ‘incorrectly’ or ‘wrongly’, as the word ‘improper’ has connotations of wrongdoing rather than inaccuracy, which don’t seem relevant here. Summary of work the GNSO is already doing … 4. Summarise if appropriate Full text of the report is here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13-... <ATRT2 draft GNSO Council response.docx> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
oh, i like that one. hope it makes it in. m On Dec 10, 2013, at 4:06 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I know it pretty late to suggest a new comment and I will understand if it is too late but the following suggestion was made regarding “13.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs”:
Each ICANN engagement center should have facilities to support videoconferencing and be able to support WG size teams.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 11:31 AM To: Maria Farrell Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
hi Maria,
here's a redline markup for you all to take a look at. i love your draft and don't disagree with anything in it. i'm trying to amplify and refine. feel free to back out anything that puts you on edge.
mikey
On Dec 9, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
Here are some draft comments on the ATRT2 recommendations re. the GNSO.
Mikey and David - I know you two kindly volunteered to help out with this. Can you particularly take a look?
Also, there's a need for a para or bullet point list summarising relevant work the GNSO is already doing, e.g. the SCI? or Staff paper on improving the PDP? I'm drawing a blank on the other initiatives. Can someone please rustle up a list of them?
This needs to be submitted by the 12th, so comments please ASAP.
All the best, Maria
Dear members of the Acountability and Transparency Review Team (2),
The GNSO Council thanks you for the outcome-oriented analysis and recommendations in the ATRT2 Draft Recommendations of 21 November, 2013. We particularly appreciate the time and care that went into these recommendations, the commissioning of useful research and, especially, the efforts made by the ATRT2 and its leadership to promote awareness and dialogue about the recommendations at the Buenos Aires meeting.
The Council’s input focuses on recommendations regarding the GNSO PDP. Broadly, we strongly support the call for broader and more active working group participation and earlier involvement of the GAC, and will work hard to implement final recommendations on these issues.
New recommendations arising from issues not addressed by ATRT1 Recommendations
10.1 on developing funded options for professional facilitators to help GNSO PDP Working Groups
While some Councilors supported this suggestion, others were concerned that facilitators may not always be appropriate in the multi-stakeholder model. Broadly, we believe this is an option that could be considered in the context of the ATRT2’s recommendation to develop explicit guidelines for when to use facilitators. Agreement should be elicited by Working Group participants to use facilitators on a case by case basis, and with a clear understanding of facilitators’ roles.
10.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs
We support this recommendation and the development of guidelines for when F2F meetings may be required and justified. However, we do note that there is a variety of ability amongst Working Group participants to travel to F2F meetings. Many volunteers cannot leave work or family to do so, for example. We suggest that if intercessional F2F meetings are used more often that ICANN consider adopting the IETF approach that agreements reached during F2F meetings are then subject to consideration by mailing list members.
10.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective
As with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO. There is not one but three fundamental ways to judge PDP performance: time, participativeness and agreement. Time measures only how long it took to get to a policy; the second two are effectively proxy measures for its quality. Stressing too much the most obvious performance variable could have the unintentional consequence of sacrificing quality. Further, increasing the pressure of time can result in forced compromises that quickly fall apart or result in participants end-running to the Board, a phenomenon the report identifies. This undermines the legitimacy of the whole process.
We suggest this recommendation be revised to stress more that ‘time-effective’ encompasses efficient use of participants’ time – including preparation for and chairing of calls and follow-up activities, etc. – rather than focusing on a single, quantifiable metric that can draw attention away from other qualities.
10.2 on the GAC, with the GNSO, developing ways to input to PDP Working Groups
We strongly support this recommendation and are eager to work with the GAC on ways to implement it.
10.3 on the Board and GNSO chartering a strategic initiative to broaden participation in GNSO PDPs
We broadly support this recommendation and welcomed the detailed quantitative analysis provided in support of the need to broaden participation. We do also note staff’s observation that in some cases input to public comments may appear to be from, for example, the US but has been submitted by a US-based individual on behalf of a peak organization that consulted more widely.
Nonetheless, there is clearly a need to both broaden and deepen participation. Some of our councilors suggest that as well as outreach to increase participation from outside of ICANN, we should also do ‘in reach’ to deepen participation by individuals already involved in ICANN but who have never participated in a Working Group. We ask that the ATRT2 may consider this suggestion.
10.4 on the Board stating a process for setting gTLD policies when the GNSO ‘cannot come to closure on a specific issue within a specified time-frame’.
We share the concerns stated by others that the couching of this recommendation may unwittingly undermine the multi-stakeholder model in ICANN. Policy-making can take longer than is predictable or desirable, but nonetheless be effective in its deliberativeness, output and degree of support. This recommendation seems to perpetuate a belief that the GNSO – the engine of gTLD policy development and the only part of ICANN driven by carefully balanced stakeholder decision-making – is too slow and argumentative. That belief can drive some ICANN participants to go around the GNSO and straight to the Board, undermining the multi-stakeholder process and ICANN’s raison d’etre. While Board deadlines can sometimes help overcome intractable differences, it’s not clear how to ensure constructive negotiation within the PDP without later recourse to the Board or GAC.
This recommendation seems to contradict the research report finding that there is both a conflict but ultimately a ‘sweet spot’ to be found between policy-making being sufficiently participatory and speedy. We suggest that this recommendation be revised to help the GNSO find that sweet spot – which will change from one issue to the next and is not a ‘one size fits all’ amount of pre-specified time. For example, the recommendation could be re-drafted to suggest the Board interact formally or informally with the GNSO to find out more about PDPs that appear to be going too slowly; to find out if that is indeed the case, and to constructively offer advice or encouragement to assist.
Recommendation 10.4 also says the Board should note under what conditions it believes it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board acceptance. We support this part of the recommendation.
Recommendation 10.4 also says there should be an additional step in the PDP Comment Process that allows those whose comments have been synthesized improperly to request changes. We support this recommendation, while noting it will add some time to the process. Perhaps it could be implemented on an ‘if/then’ basis, i.e. inserting an opportunity for commenters to raise their initial concerns to trigger taking the additional step of requesting changes to the summary. However, we also suggest replacing the term ‘improperly’ with ‘incorrectly’ or ‘wrongly’, as the word ‘improper’ has connotations of wrongdoing rather than inaccuracy, which don’t seem relevant here.
Summary of work the GNSO is already doing
…
4. Summarise if appropriate
Full text of the report is here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13-...
<ATRT2 draft GNSO Council response.docx>
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
A great suggestion. I know I'd be vastly more inclined to participate in F2F WG meetings if it meant a trip to Singapore (4 hours and same time zone) rather than LA or Washington (>24 hours travel time each way) David On 11 Dec 2013, at 6:06 am, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I know it pretty late to suggest a new comment and I will understand if it is too late but the following suggestion was made regarding “13.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs”:
Each ICANN engagement center should have facilities to support videoconferencing and be able to support WG size teams.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 11:31 AM To: Maria Farrell Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
hi Maria,
here's a redline markup for you all to take a look at. i love your draft and don't disagree with anything in it. i'm trying to amplify and refine. feel free to back out anything that puts you on edge.
mikey
On Dec 9, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
Here are some draft comments on the ATRT2 recommendations re. the GNSO.
Mikey and David - I know you two kindly volunteered to help out with this. Can you particularly take a look?
Also, there's a need for a para or bullet point list summarising relevant work the GNSO is already doing, e.g. the SCI? or Staff paper on improving the PDP? I'm drawing a blank on the other initiatives. Can someone please rustle up a list of them?
This needs to be submitted by the 12th, so comments please ASAP.
All the best, Maria
Dear members of the Acountability and Transparency Review Team (2),
The GNSO Council thanks you for the outcome-oriented analysis and recommendations in the ATRT2 Draft Recommendations of 21 November, 2013. We particularly appreciate the time and care that went into these recommendations, the commissioning of useful research and, especially, the efforts made by the ATRT2 and its leadership to promote awareness and dialogue about the recommendations at the Buenos Aires meeting.
The Council’s input focuses on recommendations regarding the GNSO PDP. Broadly, we strongly support the call for broader and more active working group participation and earlier involvement of the GAC, and will work hard to implement final recommendations on these issues.
New recommendations arising from issues not addressed by ATRT1 Recommendations
10.1 on developing funded options for professional facilitators to help GNSO PDP Working Groups
While some Councilors supported this suggestion, others were concerned that facilitators may not always be appropriate in the multi-stakeholder model. Broadly, we believe this is an option that could be considered in the context of the ATRT2’s recommendation to develop explicit guidelines for when to use facilitators. Agreement should be elicited by Working Group participants to use facilitators on a case by case basis, and with a clear understanding of facilitators’ roles.
10.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs
We support this recommendation and the development of guidelines for when F2F meetings may be required and justified. However, we do note that there is a variety of ability amongst Working Group participants to travel to F2F meetings. Many volunteers cannot leave work or family to do so, for example. We suggest that if intercessional F2F meetings are used more often that ICANN consider adopting the IETF approach that agreements reached during F2F meetings are then subject to consideration by mailing list members.
10.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective
As with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO. There is not one but three fundamental ways to judge PDP performance: time, participativeness and agreement. Time measures only how long it took to get to a policy; the second two are effectively proxy measures for its quality. Stressing too much the most obvious performance variable could have the unintentional consequence of sacrificing quality. Further, increasing the pressure of time can result in forced compromises that quickly fall apart or result in participants end-running to the Board, a phenomenon the report identifies. This undermines the legitimacy of the whole process.
We suggest this recommendation be revised to stress more that ‘time-effective’ encompasses efficient use of participants’ time – including preparation for and chairing of calls and follow-up activities, etc. – rather than focusing on a single, quantifiable metric that can draw attention away from other qualities.
10.2 on the GAC, with the GNSO, developing ways to input to PDP Working Groups
We strongly support this recommendation and are eager to work with the GAC on ways to implement it.
10.3 on the Board and GNSO chartering a strategic initiative to broaden participation in GNSO PDPs
We broadly support this recommendation and welcomed the detailed quantitative analysis provided in support of the need to broaden participation. We do also note staff’s observation that in some cases input to public comments may appear to be from, for example, the US but has been submitted by a US-based individual on behalf of a peak organization that consulted more widely.
Nonetheless, there is clearly a need to both broaden and deepen participation. Some of our councilors suggest that as well as outreach to increase participation from outside of ICANN, we should also do ‘in reach’ to deepen participation by individuals already involved in ICANN but who have never participated in a Working Group. We ask that the ATRT2 may consider this suggestion.
10.4 on the Board stating a process for setting gTLD policies when the GNSO ‘cannot come to closure on a specific issue within a specified time-frame’.
We share the concerns stated by others that the couching of this recommendation may unwittingly undermine the multi-stakeholder model in ICANN. Policy-making can take longer than is predictable or desirable, but nonetheless be effective in its deliberativeness, output and degree of support. This recommendation seems to perpetuate a belief that the GNSO – the engine of gTLD policy development and the only part of ICANN driven by carefully balanced stakeholder decision-making – is too slow and argumentative. That belief can drive some ICANN participants to go around the GNSO and straight to the Board, undermining the multi-stakeholder process and ICANN’s raison d’etre. While Board deadlines can sometimes help overcome intractable differences, it’s not clear how to ensure constructive negotiation within the PDP without later recourse to the Board or GAC.
This recommendation seems to contradict the research report finding that there is both a conflict but ultimately a ‘sweet spot’ to be found between policy-making being sufficiently participatory and speedy. We suggest that this recommendation be revised to help the GNSO find that sweet spot – which will change from one issue to the next and is not a ‘one size fits all’ amount of pre-specified time. For example, the recommendation could be re-drafted to suggest the Board interact formally or informally with the GNSO to find out more about PDPs that appear to be going too slowly; to find out if that is indeed the case, and to constructively offer advice or encouragement to assist.
Recommendation 10.4 also says the Board should note under what conditions it believes it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board acceptance. We support this part of the recommendation.
Recommendation 10.4 also says there should be an additional step in the PDP Comment Process that allows those whose comments have been synthesized improperly to request changes. We support this recommendation, while noting it will add some time to the process. Perhaps it could be implemented on an ‘if/then’ basis, i.e. inserting an opportunity for commenters to raise their initial concerns to trigger taking the additional step of requesting changes to the summary. However, we also suggest replacing the term ‘improperly’ with ‘incorrectly’ or ‘wrongly’, as the word ‘improper’ has connotations of wrongdoing rather than inaccuracy, which don’t seem relevant here.
Summary of work the GNSO is already doing
…
4. Summarise if appropriate
Full text of the report is here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13-...
<ATRT2 draft GNSO Council response.docx>
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
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
Many thanks to those of you who have picked up this thread and worked on it. N.B To all Councillors. It will be great if we can support this good work and get behind an agreed submission to the ATRT2 by the deadline (13 Dec i.e. the day after the Council meeting). Please do aim to come to Thursday's meeting in a position to support the emerging statement if possible. Any amendments required, please get them to the list now so that they can be accommodated in advance of Thursday. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: 11 December 2013 03:44 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. 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 Maria, here's a late-breaking suggestion from the ISPCP (i'm not the lion, i just get to give the roar). how about this as an amplification of the introductory part of the letter? The GNSO Council thanks you for the outcome-oriented analysis and recommendations in the ATRT2 Draft Recommendations of 21 November, 2013. We particularly appreciated the thorough assessment of ICANN’s implementation of the Recommendations of the three prior AoC Review Teams: this process of self assessment, as defined by the AoC, is essential to continuously improve mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency and to ensure that ICANN’s decision-making is accountable to all stakeholders. We particularly also appreciate the time and care that went into these recommendations, the commissioning of useful research and, especially, the efforts made by the ATRT2 and its leadership to promote awareness and dialogue about the recommendations at the Buenos Aires meeting. PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
This sounds good to me, Mikey. I'm just incorporating the other comments and suggestions so I'll put this into the draft I circulate shortly and people can comment on it. Thanks, m On 11 December 2013 16:48, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
hi Maria,
here's a late-breaking suggestion from the ISPCP (i'm not the lion, i just get to give the roar).
how about this as an amplification of the introductory part of the letter?
The GNSO Council thanks you for the outcome-oriented analysis and recommendations in the ATRT2 Draft Recommendations of 21 November, 2013.
We particularly appreciated the thorough assessment of ICANN’s implementation of the Recommendations of the three prior AoC Review Teams: this process of self assessment, as defined by the AoC, is essential to continuously improve mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency and to ensure that ICANN’s decision-making is accountable to all stakeholders.
We particularly also appreciate the time and care that went into these recommendations, the commissioning of useful research and, especially, the efforts made by the ATRT2 and its leadership to promote awareness and dialogue about the recommendations at the Buenos Aires meeting.
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Two thoughts then: 1. Maria, I think you still have the pen so, unless objections appear, please Chuck's suggestion into the draft. 2. We should set a cut-off for edits ahead of the Council meeting. 23h59 UTC today (Wed 11 Dec) seems sensible. Jonathan From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 11 December 2013 01:54 To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments A great suggestion. I know I'd be vastly more inclined to participate in F2F WG meetings if it meant a trip to Singapore (4 hours and same time zone) rather than LA or Washington (>24 hours travel time each way) David On 11 Dec 2013, at 6:06 am, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: I know it pretty late to suggest a new comment and I will understand if it is too late but the following suggestion was made regarding "13.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs": Each ICANN engagement center should have facilities to support videoconferencing and be able to support WG size teams. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 11:31 AM To: Maria Farrell Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments hi Maria, here's a redline markup for you all to take a look at. i love your draft and don't disagree with anything in it. i'm trying to amplify and refine. feel free to back out anything that puts you on edge. mikey On Dec 9, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Maria Farrell < <mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com> maria.farrell@gmail.com> wrote: Dear all, Here are some draft comments on the ATRT2 recommendations re. the GNSO. Mikey and David - I know you two kindly volunteered to help out with this. Can you particularly take a look? Also, there's a need for a para or bullet point list summarising relevant work the GNSO is already doing, e.g. the SCI? or Staff paper on improving the PDP? I'm drawing a blank on the other initiatives. Can someone please rustle up a list of them? This needs to be submitted by the 12th, so comments please ASAP. All the best, Maria Dear members of the Acountability and Transparency Review Team (2), The GNSO Council thanks you for the outcome-oriented analysis and recommendations in the ATRT2 Draft Recommendations of 21 November, 2013. We particularly appreciate the time and care that went into these recommendations, the commissioning of useful research and, especially, the efforts made by the ATRT2 and its leadership to promote awareness and dialogue about the recommendations at the Buenos Aires meeting. The Council's input focuses on recommendations regarding the GNSO PDP. Broadly, we strongly support the call for broader and more active working group participation and earlier involvement of the GAC, and will work hard to implement final recommendations on these issues. New recommendations arising from issues not addressed by ATRT1 Recommendations 10.1 on developing funded options for professional facilitators to help GNSO PDP Working Groups While some Councilors supported this suggestion, others were concerned that facilitators may not always be appropriate in the multi-stakeholder model. Broadly, we believe this is an option that could be considered in the context of the ATRT2's recommendation to develop explicit guidelines for when to use facilitators. Agreement should be elicited by Working Group participants to use facilitators on a case by case basis, and with a clear understanding of facilitators' roles. 10.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs We support this recommendation and the development of guidelines for when F2F meetings may be required and justified. However, we do note that there is a variety of ability amongst Working Group participants to travel to F2F meetings. Many volunteers cannot leave work or family to do so, for example. We suggest that if intercessional F2F meetings are used more often that ICANN consider adopting the IETF approach that agreements reached during F2F meetings are then subject to consideration by mailing list members. 10.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP process more time-effective As with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO. There is not one but three fundamental ways to judge PDP performance: time, participativeness and agreement. Time measures only how long it took to get to a policy; the second two are effectively proxy measures for its quality. Stressing too much the most obvious performance variable could have the unintentional consequence of sacrificing quality. Further, increasing the pressure of time can result in forced compromises that quickly fall apart or result in participants end-running to the Board, a phenomenon the report identifies. This undermines the legitimacy of the whole process. We suggest this recommendation be revised to stress more that 'time-effective' encompasses efficient use of participants' time - including preparation for and chairing of calls and follow-up activities, etc. - rather than focusing on a single, quantifiable metric that can draw attention away from other qualities. 10.2 on the GAC, with the GNSO, developing ways to input to PDP Working Groups We strongly support this recommendation and are eager to work with the GAC on ways to implement it. 10.3 on the Board and GNSO chartering a strategic initiative to broaden participation in GNSO PDPs We broadly support this recommendation and welcomed the detailed quantitative analysis provided in support of the need to broaden participation. We do also note staff's observation that in some cases input to public comments may appear to be from, for example, the US but has been submitted by a US-based individual on behalf of a peak organization that consulted more widely. Nonetheless, there is clearly a need to both broaden and deepen participation. Some of our councilors suggest that as well as outreach to increase participation from outside of ICANN, we should also do 'in reach' to deepen participation by individuals already involved in ICANN but who have never participated in a Working Group. We ask that the ATRT2 may consider this suggestion. 10.4 on the Board stating a process for setting gTLD policies when the GNSO 'cannot come to closure on a specific issue within a specified time-frame'. We share the concerns stated by others that the couching of this recommendation may unwittingly undermine the multi-stakeholder model in ICANN. Policy-making can take longer than is predictable or desirable, but nonetheless be effective in its deliberativeness, output and degree of support. This recommendation seems to perpetuate a belief that the GNSO - the engine of gTLD policy development and the only part of ICANN driven by carefully balanced stakeholder decision-making - is too slow and argumentative. That belief can drive some ICANN participants to go around the GNSO and straight to the Board, undermining the multi-stakeholder process and ICANN's raison d'etre. While Board deadlines can sometimes help overcome intractable differences, it's not clear how to ensure constructive negotiation within the PDP without later recourse to the Board or GAC. This recommendation seems to contradict the research report finding that there is both a conflict but ultimately a 'sweet spot' to be found between policy-making being sufficiently participatory and speedy. We suggest that this recommendation be revised to help the GNSO find that sweet spot - which will change from one issue to the next and is not a 'one size fits all' amount of pre-specified time. For example, the recommendation could be re-drafted to suggest the Board interact formally or informally with the GNSO to find out more about PDPs that appear to be going too slowly; to find out if that is indeed the case, and to constructively offer advice or encouragement to assist. Recommendation 10.4 also says the Board should note under what conditions it believes it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board acceptance. We support this part of the recommendation. Recommendation 10.4 also says there should be an additional step in the PDP Comment Process that allows those whose comments have been synthesized improperly to request changes. We support this recommendation, while noting it will add some time to the process. Perhaps it could be implemented on an 'if/then' basis, i.e. inserting an opportunity for commenters to raise their initial concerns to trigger taking the additional step of requesting changes to the summary. However, we also suggest replacing the term 'improperly' with 'incorrectly' or 'wrongly', as the word 'improper' has connotations of wrongdoing rather than inaccuracy, which don't seem relevant here. Summary of work the GNSO is already doing . 4. Summarise if appropriate Full text of the report is here: <http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13 -en.pdf> http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13- en.pdf <ATRT2 draft GNSO Council response.docx> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: <http://www.haven2.com/> www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Dear All, Just to be clear on this topic: I note that this is marked on Item 7 on our agenda as “DISCUSSION”. So, is it still only up for discussion, or is it planned to be something to decide upon as a formal GNSO Council reply? 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, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> skrev:
Hi all, I will work in Chuck's comments and re-circulate a new draft to the deadline ahead of the discussion tomorrow (Thurs). Maria On 11 December 2013 08:50, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>wrote:
Dear All,
Just to be clear on this topic:
I note that this is marked on Item 7 on our agenda as “DISCUSSION”.
So, is it still only up for discussion, or is it planned to be something to decide upon as a formal GNSO Council reply?
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, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> skrev:
Thanks Petter, We have a deadline for submission of 13 Dec so a formal Council reply (if we do send one) is needed by 13 Dec latest. Noted that it is labelled as a DISCUSSION but in the body text below, it does highlight the following: Here the Council will confirm what written feedback, if any, it intends to provide in advance of the 13 December 2013 deadline. Accordingly, it will be very helpful if you can: a. Provide any input you ahead of 23h59 today b. Be in a position to support the written submission as drafted ahead of the meeting on 12 Dec. Jonathan From: Petter Rindforth [mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu] Sent: 11 December 2013 08:51 To: jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: 'David Cake'; 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Mike O'Connor'; 'Maria Farrell'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Dear All, Just to be clear on this topic: I note that this is marked on Item 7 on our agenda as “DISCUSSION”. So, is it still only up for discussion, or is it planned to be something to decide upon as a formal GNSO Council reply? 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, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> skrev:
i agree, David. one of the best "crazy ideas" i ever saw at ICANN was Brett Faucett's project to set up an ICANN space in Second Life. he had a beautiful "island" built that had all the typical facilities that we'd see at an ICANN meeting. a great hall where we could all meet together, a bunch of smaller rooms for mid-size meetings, even smaller rooms for working meetings. and, of course, a bar. sadly, he got shot out of the saddle (i can't remember why) and the project never really took off. i would like to formally thank Brett for doing all that work. i'd also like to publicly encourage him, or anybody else, to consider trying again. our new management team is all about 21st century social-media and outreach. well, virtual worlds is a big part of the 21st century internet, and they are where a lot of the people we're trying to reach hang out. no… please don't re-invent virtual worlds, or pay millions of dollars to build one. but consider it. especially consider them for doing work. look to the academic community for experience and ideas. wouldn't it be nice if: -- we could have a "face to face" meeting at the drop of a hat, over this Internet thing which seems to be catching on? without having to expend thousands of pounds of carbon, wasting endless hours sitting in uncomfortable places? -- we had superb collaboration tools available -- there was a menu of facilities available, ranging in size, capability, "structured-ness", etc.? -- it was fun to go there and just hang out, meet new people, catch up with friends, organize ad-hoc groups, keep up on the news, etc.? just sayin. mikey On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:53 PM, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au> wrote:
A great suggestion. I know I'd be vastly more inclined to participate in F2F WG meetings if it meant a trip to Singapore (4 hours and same time zone) rather than LA or Washington (>24 hours travel time each way)
David
On 11 Dec 2013, at 6:06 am, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I know it pretty late to suggest a new comment and I will understand if it is too late but the following suggestion was made regarding “13.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs”:
Each ICANN engagement center should have facilities to support videoconferencing and be able to support WG size teams.
Chuck
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Love this idea. Who was it on Friday that said: "I never thought getting involved in the Internet would mean spending so much time in airplanes?" That quote has stuck with me ever since (and really resonates with my wife!) Thank you-- J. Sent from my iPad On Dec 11, 2013, at 5:42, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> wrote: i agree, David. one of the best "crazy ideas" i ever saw at ICANN was Brett Faucett's project to set up an ICANN space in Second Life. he had a beautiful "island" built that had all the typical facilities that we'd see at an ICANN meeting. a great hall where we could all meet together, a bunch of smaller rooms for mid-size meetings, even smaller rooms for working meetings. and, of course, a bar. sadly, he got shot out of the saddle (i can't remember why) and the project never really took off. i would like to formally thank Brett for doing all that work. i'd also like to publicly encourage him, or anybody else, to consider trying again. our new management team is all about 21st century social-media and outreach. well, virtual worlds is a big part of the 21st century internet, and they are where a lot of the people we're trying to reach hang out. no... please don't re-invent virtual worlds, or pay millions of dollars to build one. but consider it. especially consider them for doing work. look to the academic community for experience and ideas. wouldn't it be nice if: -- we could have a "face to face" meeting at the drop of a hat, over this Internet thing which seems to be catching on? without having to expend thousands of pounds of carbon, wasting endless hours sitting in uncomfortable places? -- we had superb collaboration tools available -- there was a menu of facilities available, ranging in size, capability, "structured-ness", etc.? -- it was fun to go there and just hang out, meet new people, catch up with friends, organize ad-hoc groups, keep up on the news, etc.? just sayin. mikey On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:53 PM, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>> wrote: A great suggestion. I know I'd be vastly more inclined to participate in F2F WG meetings if it meant a trip to Singapore (4 hours and same time zone) rather than LA or Washington (>24 hours travel time each way) David On 11 Dec 2013, at 6:06 am, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I know it pretty late to suggest a new comment and I will understand if it is too late but the following suggestion was made regarding "13.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs": Each ICANN engagement center should have facilities to support videoconferencing and be able to support WG size teams. Chuck PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
+1 (and my husband agrees....!) On 11 December 2013 14:28, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Love this idea. Who was it on Friday that said: "I never thought getting involved in the Internet would mean spending so much time in airplanes?" That quote has stuck with me ever since (and really resonates with my wife!)
Thank you--
J.
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 11, 2013, at 5:42, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
i agree, David.
one of the best "crazy ideas" i ever saw at ICANN was Brett Faucett's project to set up an ICANN space in Second Life. he had a beautiful "island" built that had all the typical facilities that we'd see at an ICANN meeting. a great hall where we could all meet together, a bunch of smaller rooms for mid-size meetings, even smaller rooms for working meetings. and, of course, a bar.
sadly, he got shot out of the saddle (i can't remember why) and the project never really took off.
i would like to formally thank Brett for doing all that work. i'd also like to publicly encourage him, or anybody else, to consider trying again. our new management team is all about 21st century social-media and outreach. well, virtual worlds is a big part of the 21st century internet, and they are where a lot of the people we're trying to reach hang out. no… please don't re-invent virtual worlds, or pay millions of dollars to build one. but consider it. especially consider them for doing work. look to the academic community for experience and ideas.
wouldn't it be nice if:
-- we could have a "face to face" meeting at the drop of a hat, over this Internet thing which seems to be catching on? without having to expend thousands of pounds of carbon, wasting endless hours sitting in uncomfortable places?
-- we had superb collaboration tools available
-- there was a menu of facilities available, ranging in size, capability, "structured-ness", etc.?
-- it was fun to go there and just hang out, meet new people, catch up with friends, organize ad-hoc groups, keep up on the news, etc.?
just sayin.
mikey
On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:53 PM, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au> wrote:
A great suggestion. I know I'd be vastly more inclined to participate in F2F WG meetings if it meant a trip to Singapore (4 hours and same time zone) rather than LA or Washington (>24 hours travel time each way)
David
On 11 Dec 2013, at 6:06 am, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I know it pretty late to suggest a new comment and I will understand if it is too late but the following suggestion was made regarding “*13.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs*”: Each ICANN engagement center should have facilities to support videoconferencing and be able to support WG size teams.
Chuck
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
participants (8)
-
Alan Greenberg -
David Cake -
Gomes, Chuck -
James M. Bladel -
Jonathan Robinson -
Maria Farrell -
Mike O'Connor -
Petter Rindforth