[council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
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