RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

 

I understand Petter's point on timeliness and opportunity to consult with
groups.  Nevertheless, we have had reasonable opportunity to consider the
report and our respective group's position/s on these.

 

Therefore, it seems that there are two key points:

 

1.       Have we got sufficient agreement on the content?

2.       Can we commit to a submission by the deadline tomorrow?

 

Accordingly, Maria please can you try to supply us with what you believe to
be the latest draft, ideally that we have substantial agreement on.

We can use this as a basis to answer one and two above in the meeting today.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Jonathan

 

From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 11 December 2013 23:07
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: John Berard; Berry Cobb; James M. Bladel; Maria Farrell; Alan Greenberg;
David Cake; <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

 

i would add a couple variables

 

            R = rigor

 

            L (since "C" is already taken) = level of consensus

 

give me permission to do a sketchy work-product with low levels of consensus
and i can bring a working-group home in a jiffy.  ;-)

 

mikey

 

 

On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:27 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





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

 

Chuck

 

From: John Berard [mailto:john@ <http://crediblecontext.com>
crediblecontext.com] 
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; < <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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" < <mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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

 <mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

@berrycobb

 

 

From:  <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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;
<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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:  <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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;
<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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:[mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx]>
[mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:12 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell
Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor;
<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 < <mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:02 
To: Maria Farrell < <mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Alan Greenberg < <mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, David Cake < <mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mike O'Connor < <mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, " <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
< <mailto: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':

 


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