RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I like it.  I think it helps make my points with regard to time-effectiveness.  
☺

Chuck

From: John Berard [mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:43 PM
To: Berry Cobb
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; 
Mike O'Connor; <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

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<mailto: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<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
@berrycobb


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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> 
[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<mailto: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]<mailto:[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<mailto: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<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02
To: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
David Cake <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Mike 
O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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’: