<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Maria,
Here is what I was referring to Maria.
Thanks for all the time you have spent on this and sorry for making your task
more difficult.
Chuck
From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 7:06 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: James M. Bladel; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor;
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Chuck, I incorporated them verbatim. Not sure what the issue is.
On 11 December 2013 19:00, Gomes, Chuck
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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>
[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':
* 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]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:26 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor;
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Thanks Alan.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg
[mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx<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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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
--- Begin Message ---
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:54:58 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E492A6FF0@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
- Thread-index: AQHO9Ry3QiHz8w7TUEO2M6Ojbx92RJpNoEcAgAAC1QD//7DGAIAAd/+A//+QpoCAAHtyAP//i9YA
- Thread-topic: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Thanks, Chuck. I support those changes.
J.
From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 13:50
To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, Maria
Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>>, Mike
O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Thanks James. Would it be okay to modify as follows?
“In practical terms, we understand that the average time to complete a PDP can
be a barrier to participation and can undermine the ICANN model. The
multi-year effort to participate in a PDP is a commitment that individuals
often can’t afford and commercial organizations cannot justify. And the
anticipated elapsed time makes the PDP an unattractive mechanism for addressing
urgent or controversial matters, and provides incentives for parties to
escalate these immediately to other structures, such as the Board or GAC. So we
are supportive of efforts to make PDPs more time effective.”
“At the same time, as with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned
that speed not be the main metric used to determine the performance of the
GNSO. . . ”
Chuck
From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 2:29 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Maria Farrell; Mike O'Connor
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Hi Chuck:
Well, I started to mark up the text, but quickly realized that the entire
paragraph focused solely on the dangers of focusing exclusively on elapsed PDP
time.
Perhaps a clean way to salvage this section would be to include an introductory
sentence or two that captures my concerns below. How about we prepend
something like this to the section:
“In practical terms, the average time to complete a PDP represents a barrier to
participation and undermines the ICANN model. The multi-year effort to
participate in a PDP is a commitment that individuals often can’t afford and
commercial organizations cannot justify. And the anticipate elapsed time makes
the PDP an unattractive mechanism for addressing urgent or controversial
matters, and provides incentives for parties to escalate these immediately to
other structures, such as the Board or GAC."
Thoughts?
J.
From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 13:07
To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, Maria
Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>>, Mike
O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
James,
It sounds like you are in agreement with the sentiments you flagged but would
add some to them. In my reading of the comments I understand them to be saying
that PDP measurement shouldn’t focus so much on time that quality is sacrificed
and you seem to say the same thing, i.e., “the future of the BU/MSM is entirely
dependent upon a PDP that is timely —and– results in quality outcomes”. If I
am correct, how would you change the current wording?
Chuck
From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:58 PM
To: Maria Farrell; Mike O'Connor
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
I support this version of the draft, except for the sentiments contained in the
section regarding making the PDP more time effective.
While I don’t dispute that elapsed time for a PDP is only one (among several)
measure of the overall quality of the process, I strongly believe that in the
“real world,” the slow pace of the PDP is a threat to the PDP, the GNSO and
even the ICANN model itself.
This isn’t just alarmist thinking on my part — the multi-year average TTL for a
PDP represents a significant barrier to wider participation from volunteers
(who can’t afford the commitment) and commercial organizations (who cannot
justify it). It also provides a clear incentive for governments and other
interests to seek faster paths to advance their agendas through ICANN, ensuring
that urgent or controversial topics will immediately escalate to a Board/GAC
interaction.
In my opinion, the future of the BU/MSM is entirely dependent upon a PDP that
is timely —and– results in quality outcomes.
Thanks—
J.
From: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 10:41
To: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
Hi Mikey,
These changes look great to me, thanks a million.
Does anyone else plan to chip in?
We have an agenda item on this on Thursday's meeting, and a submission deadline
on Friday.
All the best, Maria
On 10 December 2013 16:31, Mike O'Connor
<mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
hi Maria,
here's a redline markup for you all to take a look at. i love your draft and
don't disagree with anything in it. i'm trying to amplify and refine. feel
free to back out anything that puts you on edge.
mikey
On Dec 9, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Maria Farrell
<maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Dear all,
Here are some draft comments on the ATRT2 recommendations re. the GNSO.
Mikey and David - I know you two kindly volunteered to help out with this. Can
you particularly take a look?
Also, there's a need for a para or bullet point list summarising relevant work
the GNSO is already doing, e.g. the SCI? or Staff paper on improving the PDP?
I'm drawing a blank on the other initiatives. Can someone please rustle up a
list of them?
This needs to be submitted by the 12th, so comments please ASAP.
All the best, Maria
Dear members of the Acountability and Transparency Review Team (2),
The GNSO Council thanks you for the outcome-oriented analysis and
recommendations in the ATRT2 Draft Recommendations of 21 November, 2013. We
particularly appreciate the time and care that went into these recommendations,
the commissioning of useful research and, especially, the efforts made by the
ATRT2 and its leadership to promote awareness and dialogue about the
recommendations at the Buenos Aires meeting.
The Council’s input focuses on recommendations regarding the GNSO PDP. Broadly,
we strongly support the call for broader and more active working group
participation and earlier involvement of the GAC, and will work hard to
implement final recommendations on these issues.
New recommendations arising from issues not addressed by ATRT1 Recommendations
10.1 on developing funded options for professional facilitators to help GNSO
PDP Working Groups
While some Councilors supported this suggestion, others were concerned that
facilitators may not always be appropriate in the multi-stakeholder model.
Broadly, we believe this is an option that could be considered in the context
of the ATRT2’s recommendation to develop explicit guidelines for when to use
facilitators. Agreement should be elicited by Working Group participants to use
facilitators on a case by case basis, and with a clear understanding of
facilitators’ roles.
10.1 on face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs
We support this recommendation and the development of guidelines for when F2F
meetings may be required and justified. However, we do note that there is a
variety of ability amongst Working Group participants to travel to F2F
meetings. Many volunteers cannot leave work or family to do so, for example. We
suggest that if intercessional F2F meetings are used more often that ICANN
consider adopting the IETF approach that agreements reached during F2F meetings
are then subject to consideration by mailing list members.
10.1 on GNSO and the wider ICANN community developing ways to make the GNSO PDP
process more time-effective
As with our comments on item 10.4 below, we are concerned that speed not be the
main metric used to determine the performance of the GNSO. There is not one but
three fundamental ways to judge PDP performance: time, participativeness and
agreement. Time measures only how long it took to get to a policy; the second
two are effectively proxy measures for its quality. Stressing too much the most
obvious performance variable could have the unintentional consequence of
sacrificing quality. Further, increasing the pressure of time can result in
forced compromises that quickly fall apart or result in participants
end-running to the Board, a phenomenon the report identifies. This undermines
the legitimacy of the whole process.
We suggest this recommendation be revised to stress more that ‘time-effective’
encompasses efficient use of participants’ time – including preparation for and
chairing of calls and follow-up activities, etc. – rather than focusing on a
single, quantifiable metric that can draw attention away from other qualities.
10.2 on the GAC, with the GNSO, developing ways to input to PDP Working Groups
We strongly support this recommendation and are eager to work with the GAC on
ways to implement it.
10.3 on the Board and GNSO chartering a strategic initiative to broaden
participation in GNSO PDPs
We broadly support this recommendation and welcomed the detailed quantitative
analysis provided in support of the need to broaden participation. We do also
note staff’s observation that in some cases input to public comments may appear
to be from, for example, the US but has been submitted by a US-based individual
on behalf of a peak organization that consulted more widely.
Nonetheless, there is clearly a need to both broaden and deepen participation.
Some of our councilors suggest that as well as outreach to increase
participation from outside of ICANN, we should also do ‘in reach’ to deepen
participation by individuals already involved in ICANN but who have never
participated in a Working Group. We ask that the ATRT2 may consider this
suggestion.
10.4 on the Board stating a process for setting gTLD policies when the GNSO
‘cannot come to closure on a specific issue within a specified time-frame’.
We share the concerns stated by others that the couching of this recommendation
may unwittingly undermine the multi-stakeholder model in ICANN. Policy-making
can take longer than is predictable or desirable, but nonetheless be effective
in its deliberativeness, output and degree of support. This recommendation
seems to perpetuate a belief that the GNSO – the engine of gTLD policy
development and the only part of ICANN driven by carefully balanced stakeholder
decision-making – is too slow and argumentative. That belief can drive some
ICANN participants to go around the GNSO and straight to the Board, undermining
the multi-stakeholder process and ICANN’s raison d’etre. While Board deadlines
can sometimes help overcome intractable differences, it’s not clear how to
ensure constructive negotiation within the PDP without later recourse to the
Board or GAC.
This recommendation seems to contradict the research report finding that there
is both a conflict but ultimately a ‘sweet spot’ to be found between
policy-making being sufficiently participatory and speedy. We suggest that this
recommendation be revised to help the GNSO find that sweet spot – which will
change from one issue to the next and is not a ‘one size fits all’ amount of
pre-specified time. For example, the recommendation could be re-drafted to
suggest the Board interact formally or informally with the GNSO to find out
more about PDPs that appear to be going too slowly; to find out if that is
indeed the case, and to constructively offer advice or encouragement to assist.
Recommendation 10.4 also says the Board should note under what conditions it
believes it may alter PDP recommendations after formal Board acceptance. We
support this part of the recommendation.
Recommendation 10.4 also says there should be an additional step in the PDP
Comment Process that allows those whose comments have been synthesized
improperly to request changes. We support this recommendation, while noting it
will add some time to the process. Perhaps it could be implemented on an
‘if/then’ basis, i.e. inserting an opportunity for commenters to raise their
initial concerns to trigger taking the additional step of requesting changes to
the summary. However, we also suggest replacing the term ‘improperly’ with
‘incorrectly’ or ‘wrongly’, as the word ‘improper’ has connotations of
wrongdoing rather than inaccuracy, which don’t seem relevant here.
Summary of work the GNSO is already doing
…
4. Summarise if appropriate
Full text of the report is here:
http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13-en.pdf
<ATRT2 draft GNSO Council response.docx>
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.)
--- End Message ---
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|