Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Here is the updated version for discussion today. Maria On 12 December 2013 12:08, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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.) >> >> >> > > Attachment:
ATRT2 draft GNSO Council response v4.doc
|