<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments
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.
Alan
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.
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|