Re: Astoundingly off-topic [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

[Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Antony Van Couvering <
avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> Consider for a moment that the timelines of the Working Group have not been
> unrealistic at all.  The PDP's charter includes a provision to not delay the
> launch of new gTLDs, and in order to fulfill that, we had to move
> expeditiously.  From where I sit, progress has been agonizingly slow, due in
> part to punctilious observance of the rules.
>
> As it turned out, a lot of sound and fury brought us to where it was clear
> to many that we would end up -- with different camps with different ideas,
> needing someone else (someone higher) to cut the knot and make a decision.
>  It is risible to suggest that if we had had more time we would have reached
> a different place.  In fact we could have arrived here in a much shorter
> time.
>
> I do not see any disrespect for PDP processes, merely a desire to actually
> respect the timelines that PDP processes are *supposed* to take, instead of
> taking the usual route of jettisoning the written, agreed-to-by-the-GNSO
> timelines in favor of the "own sweet time" deadlines PDPs have customarily
> operated under.   And to respect the "don't delay new gTLDs" that the WG
> actually agreed to, when it is unable to agree on much else at all.
>
> I would take this group's effort, despite the fact that the result was not
> as some might have hoped for, as a *positive* case study in how to react
> quickly to an urgent issue while staying within the ICANN structure (as
> opposed, say, to the IRT).
>
> If anyone at ICANN thinks that we should be unable to get anything done in
> less than six months (which is about what we had), then they have profoundly
> misunderstood the nature and speed of the Internet.  To believe that long
> timelines are "normal" is to condemn ICANN to irrelevance.
>



> There needs to be more of this rapid policy development, not less.
>

That requires a complete change of working methods of the policy development
process. Perhaps we have to move away from weekly phone calls, Interim draft
report, Interim report, six weeks of comments, revised Draft Interim Report,
Revised final Interim Report, Board deliberations on the continuity of the
PDP work group, further weekly meetings, draft final report, comments.......
routine to something like a Inter-Constituency PDP meetings on a topic of
focus for a day or two at a stretch (during an ICANN meeting for crucial
policy decisions and in an online
icann-collaborative-facebook-like-interface for lesser policy decisions,
where policy development, comments and summarization happen simultaneously,
not one after another.

Sivasubramanian M

>
> Antony
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:30 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>
> Roberto,
>
> This can put an end to the discussion of this motion, but it will not put
> an end to the discussion of the PDP process and how a number of things this
> working group has been forced to do from the beginning have been on ad hoc
> basis to appease the Board’s unrealistic timelines and demands.  A number of
> the demands by the Board (or by those wanting to appease the Board)  have
> not respected the PDP process and we are all jumping through hoops throwing
> out a number of the principals that the group you chaired espoused in its
> final report on how the PDP process should operate.
>
> So, yes I will agree on this group not to bring up these issues again, but
> this group’s activities has presented an interesting case study for the
> PDP-WT to examine.
>
> So as the chair of that group, I thank everyone for giving us good material
> to discuss.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman**
> **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy*
>
> ------------------------------
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the
> use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and
> delete the original message.
>
>
>
> *From:* Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:16 PM
> *To:* 'Mike O'Connor'; Neuman, Jeff
> *Cc:* tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx;
> Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* RE: Astoundingly off-topic [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for
> the Council
>
> Jeff,
>
> *It should also not go unnoticed that ICANN staff is unwilling into put
> into the motion that the ICANN Board requested this input for their
> retreat.  It is clear to most in the VI Group that this information was
> requested (although NOT in a board motion).  That was consistently the
> message from the Chairs of this group and I know from personal conversations
> with some Board members that this is the case as well.*
>
> Actually, I never said that "*the ICANN Board requested this input for
> their retreat*". I only said that, from personal contacts, I understand
> that they would find useful to have it.
> I am not aware of any formal request from their part. Therefore the fact
> that this statement has not been included in the motion does not depend from
> staff's own willingness, but from a specific position of at least one of the
> co-chairs.
> I sincerely hope that this could put an end to the discussion on the
> motion.
> Thanks,
> Roberto
>
>
>
>