Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
A great suggestion. I know I'd be vastly more inclined to participate in F2F WG meetings if it meant a trip to Singapore (4 hours and same time zone) rather than LA or Washington (>24 hours travel time each way) David On 11 Dec 2013, at 6:06 am, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I know it pretty late to suggest a new comment and I will understand if it is > too late but the following suggestion was made regarding “13.1 on face to > face meetings during GNSO PDPs”: > > Each ICANN engagement center should have facilities to support > videoconferencing and be able to support WG size teams. > > > Chuck > > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Mike O'Connor > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 11:31 AM > To: Maria Farrell > Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments > > 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.) Attachment:
signature.asc
|