1. if they make their website seem less like the plan has already been approved by the GA, they're more likely to get approved by the GA. And also, I'm pretty sure the way facilitation works is that nobody should ever be sole and permanent facilitator of a working group, or wear it like a title. That's what this Parsons guy seems to be doing and that's throwing off a small red flag or three.
2. Given that we're a multi-pronged movement, it's a good idea to have one of those prongs engaged in the current power structure, and this seems like a pretty good way to do it. Not relying on the shadowy machinery common to the structures of the existing parties, but instead a new, fully transparent, representatively legitimized political body.
*really* don't like the idea of an executive committee for the GA, though. That's just the first step down a slippery slope to political exclusivism and the privilege of power. The facilitation WG already has a small amount of that, but they keep it in check pretty well.