RE: [council] Draft ATRT2 Comments

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

Thanks Alan.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:20 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; David Cake
Cc: Mike O'Connor; Maria Farrell; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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