RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

["Reed, Daniel A" <dan-reed@xxxxxxxxx>]

I like these edits.

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 8:11 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

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<mailto: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.)