Comment on PDP WT Proposals
This comment is being submitted on my own behalf.As a member of the PDP-WT I participated throughout the process, but feel that it is important that I submit the following two comments.
Recommendation 14The WT spent considerable time discussing the concept of a fast-Track PDP process. As I recall, there were two rationales for looking at such a process:
1. Issues where there was a widespread and near unanimous belief that a Consensus Policy (CP) change was required. For such issues, a fast-track procedure would allow Council and ultimately the Board to enact CP with a far less onerous work commitment. Ultimately we decided that it was not clear at this point what parts of the process could be eliminated, nor were all WT members convinced that there would ever be near unanimity on any such issues. I believe Recommendation 14 appropriately addresses this discussion and conclusion.
2. The other need for a fast-track processes somehow got lost along the way. That was the case where a regular PDP concludes and is approved by the GNSO Council and the Board, and then the periodic reports referenced in Recommendation 43 indicate that the resultant policy was not working as hoped, and some change is needed. Under current and proposed rules, there is no way to make any adjustment, no matter how minor, to the PDP outcome without commencing a completely new PDP.
I believe that the concept of monitoring outcomes needs to have some accompanying method of making corrections. I acknowledge that at times, getting agreement on such corrections may be contentious, but there should be some way of altering a GNSO policy recommendation if the GNSO Council and then the Board DO agree (with a super majority-type vote of course).
I suggest that once this new process is implemented, the GNSO charter a small group to charter propose such a change, and that this process not wait for a full review of the PDP process as contemplated in Recommendation 14.
Recommendation 15Recommendation 15 allows any "voting Council member" to request deferral of the consideration of the Initiation of a PDP. This means the Council members from all of the four Stakeholder Groups and the two Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) who sit in the two Houses to request such a deferral, but does not give this right to the NCA who floats in limbo in the Council but outside of the Houses (sometimes referred to as the Homeless NCA). I strongly disagree with this recommendation. It was not of sufficient import to cause me to withhold my overall support of sending this report to council, but I do wish to go on record as opposing this recommendation.
The rationale for the recommendation was that those Councillors representing SGs could ask for a deferral to allow the councillors and their SG to consider the issue. The two voting NCAs can presumably ask for a deferral to allow them to consider the issue.
I feel that it is a slap-in-the-face to the non-voting NCA. This person is already has less import on the Council than all of the other Councillors. There is no reason, in my mind, to further denigrate this position. Since the deferral is a request to not only defer voting, but to defer discussion, it is reasonable that this NCA, whose only tool IS discussion, be able to make a deferral request to allow him or her to further study the issue.