Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

[John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Who is this and what have you done with Berry?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, "Berry Cobb" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> All,
>  
> I’m probably a bit tardy in offering this to the discussion, but it might at 
> least help inform future deliberations on the topic of time duration on a 
> PDP.  I started drafting a simple formula a while ago and I suspect a few 
> more variables could be added.
>  
> Duration of a PDP is a function of participation X frequency X complexity X 
> knowledge
> D=PxFxCxK
>  
> Food for thought…….
>  
> B
>  
> Berry Cobb
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> 720.839.5735
> mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> @berrycobb
>  
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:00
> To: Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell
> Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
>  
> One more thing on this.  I was comfortable with the changes in wording that 
> James & I agreed to previously. What happened to that?
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:47 PM
> To: James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell
> Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
>  
> James,
>  
> I don’t think that time-effectiveness can be dealt with in isolation of the 
> other criteria.  In fact, time-effectiveness itself is not the root problem, 
> it is the symptom.  We could easily make PDPs shorter; would that solve the 
> problem?  We could reduce the time it takes to do a PDP?  Would that be a 
> measure of success?  The original DNSO did that in policy work by having the 
> GNSO Council act as a legislative body.  It’s easy to do things faster in a 
> top-down management model.  I am willing to consider other wording but I have 
> a serious problem with  the wording that is in the latest version Maria 
> distributed.  I think it undermines the other points we make.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell
> Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
>  
> Chuck:
>  
> I’m not entirely on board with some of the sentiments expressed in your 
> edits.  Opponents of the PDP will often (and firstly) cite the -lack– of time 
> efficiency as the primary flaw in the process.  If we are to address those 
> internal and external critics, it seems that this should be highlighted above 
> the other concerns…
>  
> Thanks—
>  
> J.
>  
> From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 
> To: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, David Cake 
> <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, 
> "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
>  
> Thanks Maria. 
>  
> Regarding ‘13.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make 
> the GNSO PDP process more time-effective’:
> ·’:
> ·         I don’t agree with this statement in the second paragraph:  “So 
> while we believe the PDP should be judged on several criteria, 
> time-effectiveness is currently the most pressing.”  I don’t think it is the 
> most pressing criterion but I do believe that is one of several that must be 
> focused on.  I would be much more comfortable if we changed the sentence to 
> something like this:  “So while we believe the PDP should be judged on 
> several criteria, time-effectiveness needs to be addressed.”
> ·         Along the same line, I would change the last paragraph as follows: 
> “Additionally we suggest that while one concern is time-effectiveness and the 
> fact that the PDPs simply takes tootake a lot of time long, reference might 
> be also made in your recommendations to other, more qualitative measures of 
> the effectiveness of policy-making; deliberativeness, participation and 
> support.”
> In my opinion, it is critical to focus on all the criteria together rather 
> than isolating one as the most important.  As our other comments on this 
> suggest, that risks sacrificing qualitative criteria.  Do we want to 
> compromise the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model to make PDPs more time 
> efficient?  I don’t think so.  I believe what we want to do is to find ways 
> to improve time-effectiveness while still making sure that PDPs are bottom-up 
> and multi-stakeholder.  For example, the qualitative criteria of 
> participation and support are areas where improvements could be made to 
> improve time-effectiveness.  Finally, I think that categorizing 
> time-effectiveness as the most pressing criterion is counter to what we say 
> later in our comments: “we are concerned that speed not be the main metric 
> used to determine the performance of the GNSO”.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:26 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
>  
> Hi all,
> 
> Here's a revised draft response to the ATRT2 recommendations. I've 
> incorporated all the comments and changed the focus re time-effectiveness to 
> something I hope is closer to our area of agreement.
> 
> If there are more comments between now and the deadline of 23.50 UTC tonight, 
> I'll work them in tomorrow.
> 
> It would be helpful if you can make comments on the new draft, V.3, but if 
> you're already knee-deep in V.2, then don't worry; just send comments on that 
> one instead.
> 
> Track changes and clean versions attached.
> 
> Best, m
>  
> 
> On 11 December 2013 17:02, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks Alan.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake
> Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
> 
> I guess the answer to your a or b or c question is YES. We have discussed 
> such options (very briefly), but that is indeed something that we are not 
> being prescriptive about.
> 
> The real thrust of the recommendation is the word "funded". We (the GNSO and 
> community) are making good progress toward coming up with methodologies which 
> could improve the policy development process, but many of them will require 
> funding (whether for services, travel or additional ICANN staff). What we are 
> looking for is a commitment to put money into the process so that some of 
> these pipe-dreams can become a reality.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 11/12/2013 09:02 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >Thanks Alan.  Regarding the recommendations about using facilitators,
> >did the ATRT2 discuss whether these facilitators would be ICANN staff,
> >community volunteers trained by ICANN  or paid service providers?  I
> >understand that this may be more of an implementation issues than one
> >the ATRT2 may address in the final report but am just curious.
> >
> >Chuck
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM
> >To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck
> >Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
> >
> >I am making these comments purely on my own behalf, but from the
> >perspective of being an ATRT2 member and the prime author of the
> >recommendation being discussed.
> >
> >First to Mikey, the numbering of the draft report was a mess. This
> >recommendation was numbered 10 in the Executive Summary and 13 in the
> >body of the report. The final support will (hopefully, with my fingers
> >crossed) be far more cohesive.
> >
> >The titles were not consistent. The title of the section in the body of
> >the report was not just a reference to the GNSO PDP but "Improve the
> >Effectiveness of Cross Community Deliberations". In the final
> >recommendation there will still be a focus on the GNSO policy processes
> >(not necessarily limited to the PDP as the Bylaws Annex A does allow
> >for alternatives - not currently defined), but on wider deliberations
> >as well.
> >
> >On the issue of speed, the intent of this recommendation section was
> >effective use of participants time, with a possible (and hoped for)
> >by-product of a faster overall process, so your comments are very
> >welcome. The hope is that if we can use people's time more effectively,
> >and they don't feel that much of the time in WG meetings is wasted, we
> >just might be able to get better participation. Getting people up to
> >speed outside of the formal WG meetings may also be a way of getting
> >more people involved and not boring those who already understand the
> >basic issues.
> >
> >The problem with the reference to "facilitators" was noted in Buenos
> >Aires and the recommendation is being reworked in light of this. The
> >current draft reads "Develop funded options for professional services
> >to assist GNSO PDP WGs, and also draft explicit guidelines for when
> >such options may be invoked. Such services could include training to
> >enhance work group leaders and participants ability to address
> >difficult problems and situations, professional facilitation,
> >mediation, or negotiation." Based on the comment being developed, it
> >will likely be further revised.
> >
> >The issue of "inreach" was also noted in Buenos Aires and has been
> >incorporated.
> >
> >The comments being provided are extremely helpful, and I urge you to
> >get them submitted prior to the deadline.
> >
> >As a personal note (not discussed in the ATRT at all), I am also
> >looking ahead to the possible outcomes of the Policy and Implementation
> >WG. It is conceivable that it may be recommended that when a
> >substantive "policy-like" issue is discovered during what we are
> >currently calling "implementation", it could be referred back to the
> >GNSO. If that were to happen, there would have to be FAR faster ways of
> >coming to closure than we now have in order to no unreasonably delay
> >the "implementation". Perhaps the kinds of things that we are talking
> >about here would end up helping in that brave new world as well.
> >
> >Alan
> 
>  
> world as well.
> >
> >Alan
>  
> tml>