RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I found an error in the first version of my edits, corrected it and added a comment to that suggested change. Please refer to this version instead of the first one I sent a few minutes ago. Chuck From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 9:06 AM To: 'Maria Farrell'; Jonathan Robinson Cc: Mike O'Connor; John Berard; Berry Cobb; James M. Bladel; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments Here are some suggested edits in redline format for the section about making PDPs more time effective. Chuck From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx]> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 7:17 AM To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: Mike O'Connor; Gomes, Chuck; John Berard; Berry Cobb; James M. Bladel; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: I like it. I think it helps make my points with regard to time-effectiveness. :) Chuck From: John Berard [mailto:john@<mailto:john@>crediblecontext.com<http://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; <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<tel: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': PHONE: 651-647-6109<tel:651-647-6109>, FAX: 866-280-2356<tel:866-280-2356>, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) Attachment:
Making PDPs more time effective edits from Chuck v2.docx
|