RE: [council] ATRT2 summary

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Speaking as a member of the ATRT from the GNSO, it would be good to have a 
response from the GNSO's council letting us know what the council agrees with 
and what you don't. And any uncovered concerns the council may have.

I encourage us to submit.
Avri Doria

Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Apologies, 
>
> 
>
>The input we had was from Maria (not Marika as below) but the question
>remains:
>
> 
>
>Do we provide written input to the ATRT2?
>
> 
>
>If so; (a) it needs to be done by 13 Dec and (b) is Maria in a position
>to hold the pen?
>
> 
>
>Thanks,
>
> 
>
> 
>
>Jonathan
>
> 
>
>From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
>Sent: 02 December 2013 17:47
>To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [council] ATRT2 summary
>
> 
>
>All,
>
> 
>
>We used this useful input from Marika to provide input to the ATRT2 in
>Buenos Aires.  
>
>I recall that we provided some well thought out and apparently helpful
>input in relation to the PDP and our role in managing policy
>development within the GNSO.
>
>In addition we touched on it during the wrap-up session on Thursday.
>
> 
>
>We have to decide and act quickly on whether or not to provide written
>input by close of the reply period on 13 December 2013.
>
> 
>
>Thereafter they aim to produce the final report by 31 December 2013.
>
> 
>
>Any comments or input on this welcome.
>
> 
>
> 
>
>Jonathan
>
> 
>
>From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>Sent: 20 November 2013 12:21
>To: 'Maria Farrell'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [council] ATRT2 summary
>
> 
>
>Many thanks Maria,
>
> 
>
>All, please note that we are meeting with the ATRT2 in our second
>meeting GNSO Council meeting today.  
>
> 
>
>First we seat the new council, second we elect the chair.
>
> 
>
>Then we meet with the ATRT.  Exiting councillors WELCOME to
>participate.  It’s an open / public meeting.
>
> 
>
>Jonathan
>
> 
>
>From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@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.  
>
> 
>
>