RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Maria (and colleagues),

 

We need to get this submitted today.  My understanding from yesterday's call
is that we agreed to submit in substantially the same form as had been
drafted.

 

In addition, we will include content that indicates that this is a GNSO
Council submission and that we understand that individual GNSO groups will
be submitting their own positions.

 

Please confirm if possible and indicate if you are anticipating that I will
run with it from here which I am happy to do.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Jonathan

 

From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 12 December 2013 14:59
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: James M. Bladel; Alan Greenberg; David Cake; Mike O'Connor;
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

 

Thanks, Chuck. This looks good to me.

Maria

 

On 12 December 2013 14:22, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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> 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] 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':

.        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
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> wrote:

Thanks Alan.


Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [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

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]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM
>To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck
>Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; 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