Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

[Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck, I incorporated them verbatim. Not sure what the issue is.


On 11 December 2013 19:00, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  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<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
>
>
>