Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

[Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> 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
>
>
>
> <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.)
>
>
>