RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:44 PM
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