[council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

Gomes, Chuck cgomes at verisign.com
Wed Dec 11 14:02:15 UTC 2013

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.


-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM
To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council at gnso.icann.org
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.


More information about the council mailing list