RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Many thanks to those of you who have picked up this thread and worked on it.

N.B To all Councillors. 

It will be great if we can support this good work and get behind an agreed
submission to the ATRT2 by the deadline (13 Dec i.e. the day after the
Council meeting).

Please do aim to come to Thursday's meeting in a position to support the
emerging statement if possible.  
Any amendments required, please get them to the list now so that they can be
accommodated in advance of Thursday.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 11 December 2013 03:44
To: David Cake; Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.

Alan