​That is a signfiicant part of the problem. It is a process designed by the GNSO for the exclusive benefit if its own stakeholder groups, without consideration that ​other participants may need different modalities for decision-making. As such, this has a designed-in process in which there are two classes of participants -- the GNSO, and the invited guests who sit at the back of the room. The results of such PDPs must be ratified only by the GNSO, and at that stage the other parties have no voice. As I said, I have already participated in GNSO processes where the At-Large requests (which were deemed reasonable in the WG) were dispensed with at the time of ratification and there was nothing we could do about it.

You may be very proud of the process, but it is utterly hostile to those outside the GNSO bubble. As such, don't be surprised if outsiders -- especially those who have already tried to work with it and found their viewpoints at best rejected and at worst belittled -- seek other paths.

There has been significant and beneficial progress in the evolution of CCWGs. But until that becomes the default decision-making process, those outside the GNSO will always find the PDP structure unwelcome and of limited value.

- Evan