Re: [council] ATRT2 summary
i'm happy to join/help the drafting gang. mikey On Dec 4, 2013, at 8:26 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) Attachment:
smime.p7s
|