Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

nicely done.  i support this approach too.

m

On Dec 10, 2013, at 1:54 PM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks, Chuck.  I support those changes.
> 
> J.
> 
> 
> From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 13:50 
> To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Maria Farrell 
> <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
> 
> Thanks James.  Would it be okay to modify as follows?
>  
> “In practical terms, we understand that the average time to complete a PDP 
> can be a barrier to participation and can undermine the ICANN model.  The 
> multi-year effort to participate in a PDP is a commitment that individuals 
> often can’t afford and commercial organizations cannot justify.  And the 
> anticipated elapsed time makes the PDP an unattractive mechanism for 
> addressing urgent or controversial matters, and provides incentives for 
> parties to escalate these immediately to other structures, such as the Board 
> or GAC. So we are supportive of efforts to make PDPs more time effective.”
>  
> “At the same time, 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. . . ”
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 2:29 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell; Mike O'Connor
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
>  
> Hi Chuck:
>  
> Well, I started to mark up the text, but quickly realized that the entire 
> paragraph focused solely on the dangers of focusing exclusively on elapsed 
> PDP time.  
>  
> Perhaps a clean way to salvage this section would be to include an 
> introductory sentence or two that captures my concerns below.  How about we 
> prepend something like this to the section:
>  
> “In practical terms, the average time to complete a PDP represents a barrier 
> to participation and undermines the ICANN model.  The multi-year effort to 
> participate in a PDP is a commitment that individuals often can’t afford and 
> commercial organizations cannot justify.  And the anticipate elapsed time 
> makes the PDP an unattractive mechanism for addressing urgent or 
> controversial matters, and provides incentives for parties to escalate these 
> immediately to other structures, such as the Board or GAC."
>  
> Thoughts?
>  
> J.
>  
>  
> From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 13:07 
> To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Maria Farrell 
> <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
>  
> James,
>  
> It sounds like you are in agreement with the sentiments you flagged but would 
> add some to them.  In my reading of the comments I understand them to be 
> saying that PDP measurement shouldn’t focus so much on time that quality is 
> sacrificed and you seem to say the same thing, i.e., “the future of the 
> BU/MSM is entirely dependent upon a PDP that is timely —and– results in 
> quality outcomes”.  If I am correct, how would you change the current wording?
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of James M. Bladel
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:58 PM
> To: Maria Farrell; Mike O'Connor
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
>  
> I support this version of the draft, except for the sentiments contained in 
> the section regarding making the PDP more time effective.
>  
> While I don’t dispute that elapsed time for a PDP is only one (among several) 
> measure of the overall quality of the process, I strongly believe that in the 
> “real world,” the slow pace of the PDP is a threat to the PDP, the GNSO and 
> even the ICANN model itself.  
>  
> This isn’t just alarmist thinking on my part — the multi-year average TTL for 
> a PDP represents a  significant barrier to wider participation from 
> volunteers (who can’t afford the commitment) and commercial organizations 
> (who cannot justify it). It also provides a clear incentive for governments 
> and other interests to seek faster paths to advance their agendas through 
> ICANN, ensuring that urgent or controversial topics will immediately escalate 
> to a Board/GAC interaction.
>  
> In my opinion, the future of the BU/MSM is entirely dependent upon a PDP that 
> is timely —and– results in quality outcomes.
>  
> Thanks—
>  
> J.
>  
> From: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 10:41 
> To: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
>  
> 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.)
>  
>  
>  


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)