Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

[Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jonathan,

I'll send an updated version shortly. I'm doing my best to try and
accommodate people's wishes, but it's not clear to me how.

I will include any actual changes to the text that have been suggested in
the past 18 hours - but general discussion on related points I'm not able
to accommodate as I have a couple of other deadlines to get out before this
afternoon. If anyone who's discussed issues on-list wants to try inserting
actual text, that would be welcome.

Maria


On 12 December 2013 10:46, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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