RE: [council] ATRT2 summary

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Many thanks Maria,

 

All, please note that we are meeting with the ATRT2 in our second meeting GNSO 
Council meeting today.  

 

First we seat the new council, second we elect the chair.

 

Then we meet with the ATRT.  Exiting councillors WELCOME to participate.  It’s 
an open / public meeting.

 

Jonathan

 

From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 20 November 2013 09:09
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] ATRT2 summary

 

Dear fellow councilors,

With apologies for the time it's taken me to send this last part, here is a 
summary of the ATRT2 report on the GNSO PDP. (I'm afraid I ran out of time to 
summarise the rest of the report.)

I hope this is useful.

Full text of the report is here: 
http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13-en.pdf

And the GNSO PDP part starts on page 59 of the report.

 

All the best, Maria

ATRT2 Report – section on GNSO PDP

 

The problem:

GNSO PDP is weak when it comes to resolving strong views and financial 
interests. 

 

Background research

Staff paper on improving the PDP is in the works

 

Community input

Chairs and WG veterans stress need for F2F meetings, professional facilitators, 
Board involvement and for people were both for and against the Board issuing 
threats and deadlines. 

 

Interconnect Report Findings

PDPs mostly done by North Americans and Europeans

Most active participants are paid to be there

Many participants dissatisfied with process, time it takes and feel it’s not 
worth while – one time only WG participation is typical

Culturally, PDP and WG process very Western culturally and English language 
based

 

ATRT2 Findings

 

Growing sense that professional facilitators are needed to help resolve 
difficult issues, although it may not suffice

 

Current model is based on email and conference calls, but F2F is more effective

Board deadlines sometimes used to overcome intractable differences, but it’s 
not clear how to ensure people negotiate within PDP in good faith.  

 

Board is part of the problem: Board deadlined PDPs don’t always create good 
policy.  Or Board says it wants a policy and decides its own response in the 
meantime, or Board nullifies outcomes of a PDP.  This creates distrust that 
some in the PDP are not committed to it and will undermine outcome by lobbying 
Board or GAC.

 

ATRT2 Draft New Recommendations

ICANN should:

Fund facilitators and draft guidelines for when they can be used

Provide funding for more F2F meetings

Work with community to make PDP faster, to attract more people

 

The GAC should:

With the GNSO, find ways to input to WGs and to GNSO Council on draft PDP 
reports 

 

The Board and GNSO should:

Start an initiative to increase participation from outside NA/Europe, 
non-English speaking, other cultures, people not funded by industry. Players

 

Also:

 

The Board should set procedures for what to do when the GNSO cannot come to a 
decision within the time, and state “under what conditions the Board believes 
it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board acceptance”.

 

A step should be added to the PDP process where those unhappy with staff 
comment summary can respond.