[council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Dec 11 03:44:29 UTC 2013

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 

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.


More information about the council mailing list