[council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Dec 11 15:19:54 UTC 2013

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.


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.
>-----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 
>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