Comment on PDP WT Proposals

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

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 14

The 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 15

Recommendation 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.