[pdp-pcceg-feb06] Issues with current draft final report
hi, In reading through the current draft of the final report I am concerned that its organization is problematic and that in its current form it will make reaching closure on the final report much more difficult then it needs to be. Some of the difficulties I see: - the attendance reports being so prominent has been seen as punitive by some. While the information is important in showing details of the process it is more appropriate to an addendum then to the front of the document. I think the process should be described and the fact that attendance was tracked included. The tracking tables should then me moved to an addendum. - much of the background discussion in Rapporteur's groups, while important, contains statements that not all constituencies con agree with as conclusions or main report content. Trying to get this language acceptable to all might take a very long time. - I find the way the consituency reports are scattered in and between the Rapporteur groups to be confusing. I think it should be easy to go to the constituency chapter in the report and find their comments on each ToR. - While the latest mailing on the Straw ballot is a good start, it seems to be organized in terms of ToR instead of recommendations within the ToR. Or maybe I am just not reading it correctly. While the forthcoming draft of the final report cannot be released as a final report until the TF has had a time to read and discuss it as a complete document, perhaps we can again follow the lead of the PDP 05 group and release it as a working document that can be distributed to constituencies and others for comment in SP. This would minimally fulfill the commitment to have something for the community, the council and the board to take into consideration by SP. But, unfortunately, I think that the draft final report needs major fixes before it can even be released as a working document. I suggest that the following is necessary: - The attendance tables need to be moved to end as addenda. - While the Rapporteur reports need to be included as addenda, they should not be part of the body of the report. Instead, the brief report sent by Maureen (she calls it a skeleton), with some updates and corrections as discussed during the last calls should be put in place of the cut and paste Rapporteur reports. and the Rapporteurreports should be included as addenda. - The constituency reports must, of course, remain in the report, though they should not be mixed in with the Rapporteur content and should be individually included as a section of the main body of the report as seems to be the tradition with other task force reports. - While the straw poll table needs to be included as an addenda, the updated policy recommendation section should include the level of support - which can be listed as tentative until after the SP meeting. In thinking about it, I think we still need to get full constituency results (support, no support, abstain) for the straw polls. As part of the agenda for the next meeting, I would like to ask the constituencies to review their constituencies' straw votes and fill in the blanks. Given some of our discussions I am not sure how this fits with the other TF members views. I do think we need to remove language from the main part of the report that we cannot come to closure on. I also think we need to work toward closure on the report - including a description of both points of agreement and points of disagreement, as quickly as reasonable. I think the last meeting with its ordered progression through the recommendations was quite productive and am only sorry I had to drop out before the end. In terms of the agenda for the Sao Paolo meeting I think it could include: - review of the constituency positions on the recommendations - review of the revised working document - which Liz will post on 27 Nov - determine what must be done before the working draft of the final report is ready for vote and full release as the final report of the TF.
|