RE: [council] ATRT2 summary

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Chuck, that’s a really good point and it touches on a key point 
regarding the scope of the Council.

 

My sense in this particular case has been that it is mostly about policy 
management and therefore within the remit of the Council.

In particular, a key point being to make sure that the ATRT2 is aware of the 
current position from the Council itself (including any efforts on 
improvement). 

This being more current than the interview input which the ATRT2 has used and 
may reflect a more historic  / rear-view mirror perspective.

 

That said, as a point of general principle, I do agree with you that, wherever 
possible, reference to the relevant groups is highly desirable, often necessary 
and should be the default position.

 

Jonathan

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 04 December 2013 14:38
To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] ATRT2 summary

 

I think we would need a draft in the next couple days to give us time to check 
with our respective groups.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 9:27 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] ATRT2 summary

 

Thanks Avri & John,

 

Maria, are you in a position to lead a draft of this asap?

If not, or in any event, are there any other volunteers?


Maria’s preparation work and the recordings / transcripts from our meetings in 
BA will provide the material.

 

But … it needs to be synthesised into a concise and effective input (or short & 
sweet as John put it) with council support.

 

Any takers?  One week is a tight deadline!

 

Jonathan

 

From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: 02 December 2013 23:33
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] ATRT2 summary

 

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.