December 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

[FWD: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting]
by Tim Ruiz 11 Dec '09

11 Dec '09

See below, forwarded for Jeff. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Date: Fri, December 11, 2009 11:20 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc: "Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org>, "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, The first decision you will need to make is whether a vote on this type of request is actually needed. The answer may depend on who pays or may depend on other factors. The answer may be different in this case as it is funded under the GNSO Improvements budget as opposed to GNSO Policy. Or the answer may be the same. Just some more things to think about. Again, please forward to the Council. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 12:08 PM To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting The work of the PDP-WT does not have to stop while it waits for a decision on funding for a F2F. The timing of their request in relation to when they would like to have a F2F should not be a factor here, and it is not the main issue we should be concerned with in making this decision. I have no problem discussing it at our next meeting, but would fully support putting off any vote until the next Council meeting. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Fri, December 11, 2009 10:57 am To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, "Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org> Considering the timing issues highlighted by Jeff in his request, I think Council should make an exception and discuss it at the next meeting. We should also be mindful of the precedent any decision the Council takes on this (whether for or against) will set. I am worried about the risk of generating multiple requests for F2F meetings from groups if we come out in favor of this request. I am also worried about the apparent dysfunctional nature of the PPSC that is being described here. If it is true that the PPSC has spent its last 3 teleconferences discussing its need for a F2F meeting, then this is a clear example of the system treading on its own head. If this really is the case, and I've also seen Jeff lament the lack of participation from his group (and once again, all credit to Jeff for his job as chair), then I think Council needs to call the PPSC to account before even considering any F2F meeting requests from one of the PPSC subgroups. It may be that the PPSC needs Council's help or guidance in becoming a functional group again. And that may be the first order of business for us in any PPSC discussion. Thanks, Stéphane Le 11 déc. 2009 à 17:38, Tim Ruiz a écrit : > > Chuck, > > I think Mike's point about the PDP-WT's request first being evaluated by > the PPSC is correct. The PDP-WT was formed by the PPSC, not the Council. > If the PPSC has not been consulted then I agree that it should be > consulted before the Council take any action on this. The timing of the > request in relation to the actual F2F should not be used as an excuse to > try to hurry this along. If approved, the WT can meet in February if > January doesn't work out. > > The PDP-WT has had considerable time to make the request considering > when it first came up (before Seoul). It appears to me the last three or > so conference calls have focused on it. In fact, if they'd spent their > time actually dealing with charter issues instead of debating the F2F > issue there may not be a need for a F2F. > > As you said yourself, "already budgeted GNSO Improvement funds used for > this request would not be available for funding of other such requests > in the future or for other GNSO improvement implementation actions in > this fiscal year." And, "there are no provisions in any of the documents > that govern Council operation that provide procedures for Council action > on issues like this." So I don't think it is wise for Council to rush to > a vote on this. > > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face > Meeting > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Fri, December 11, 2009 9:40 am > To: <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Cc: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, <gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org>, > "Zahid Jamil" <zahid(a)jamilandjamil.com> > > Please note my responses below Mike. Please understand that my comments > should not be interpreted to mean that I support or oppose the request. > That is a decision for the whole Council to make and the reason it is > being added to the agenda is so that the Council can consider the pros > and cons. I plan to participate in that discussion in our meeting and > will voice my personal opinions and those of the RySG in that regard > then. > > Chuck > > From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com] > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:29 AM > To: Gomes, Chuck; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'; gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face > Meeting > > > > The BC will exercise its right to push any vote on this issue to the > next meeting in Jaunuary, as we have not begun to discuss the issue and > therefore have not come to a consensus position. The issue certainly > does not warrant emergency consideration in the next 7 days, > particularly given all of the other issues we are considering these > days. > [Gomes, Chuck] To what "right" are you referring? It is correct that we > have had a consistent practice of honoring a request by any constituency > if they needed more time to consider an issue. I support that practice > if such a request is coming from a Stakeholder Group and I think even if > it comes from a constituency within a SG, so I personally would like to > request from you Mike and Zahid as Councilors from the BC, that you > would both confirm that the BC supports your request for delay. It is > my understanding that the BC has an Executive Committee, so if it is not > possible to confirm this with the full BC membership, I am sure that > your executive committee could act on my request between now and 17 > December. It has also been a practice of the Council to consider > exceptions to procedures and practices in cases where time sensitivity > is a factor. In our meeting on Thursday we will debate whether an > exception is warranted in this case as well as whether the work of this > WT is a high priority. Please note Mike that a request to delay a > decision on this means that a F2F meeting, if supported, could likely > not happen in January as proposed by the WT and that a delay until > February could possibly reduce the progress made on the PDP work before > the Nairobi meeting. Finally, considering the fact that you are a > member of the PDP WT on behalf of the BC, am I correct in assuming that > you have kept the BC membership informed of the issues the WT has > considered including the possibility of a F2F meeting on an ongoing > basis? If so, am I correct in assuming that you have already obtained > feedback from BC members on this issue? It seems to me that the BC has > had considerable time to discuss this issue, so to invoke a Council > practice may not be well justified in your case. > > Also, the PDP-WT should not be making requests of Council, especially > requests that do not have consensus even of the WT. The PPSC should be > evaluating this request now, and should make any recommendation to > Council, if any. This was the process that was agrees when we formed > the PPSC and the WTs, and there is no justification to ignore it now, > simply because a WT Chair, some of its members, and a few ICANN Staff > apparently think this is an emergency to schedule a F2F meeting. > [Gomes, Chuck] I understand that you personally oppose this request but > I encourage you not to use process and procedural arguments to advance > your personal agenda. If this is truly a BC issue, fine, but I again I > ask you and Zahid to please confirm that the BC membership and/or > executive committee supports your request for a delay. > > If Council is going to act on this request, it must be in the context of > our overall prioritization work, and not on an emergency basis as > appears to be requested. > [Gomes, Chuck] No one to my knowledge has called this an emergency but > there are clearly those who believe it is a higher priority than you do. > The goal in our upcoming meeting is to get a sense of where the full > Council is on this. And I look forward to a lively discussion on the > pros and cons. > > Mike Rodenbaugh > RODENBAUGH LAW > 548 Market Street > San Francisco, CA 94104 > (415) 738-8087 > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 6:02 AM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Cc: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org > Subject: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting > Importance: High > > > > Here is a request from Jeff Neuman, chair of the PDP WT and chair of the > PPSC, for a face-to-face (F2F) WT meeting including ICANN travel funding > support. Please ignore a previous version of Jeff's message distributed > on the Council list because it was sent to the Council list prematurely. > > Please note that a detailed request is provided in the attached file. > In preparation for our Council meeting on 17 December, please review > Jeff's message below and the attached file for discussion and possible > action by the Council in that meeting. And please forward this message > with the attachment to your respective groups immediately so that they > can do the same and provide Councilors input before 17 December and > thereby provide you any direction they have on this issue. > > Note that this request was received after the required deadline in the > Council Operation Procedures so we will have to decide whether to make > an exception to the Procedures before taking any action. The reason for > considering this exception is because the request is for a F2F meeting > in January and to delay a decision until our 7 January meeting would be > too late to allow adequate time for travel plans and other arrangements. > Also note that there are no provisions in any of the documents that > govern Council operation that provide procedures for Council action on > issues like this; we quite possibly will need to consider that topic > sometime in the future. At present though, I believe it is important > for the Council to be involved in this decision because already budgeted > GNSO Improvement funds used for this request would not be available for > funding of other such requests in the future or for other GNSO > improvement implementation actions in this fiscal year. Staff will > provide more details on funds available. > > Jeff Neuman has been invited to participate in the 17 December Council > meeting so he can be available to answer questions. > > In the meantime, I encourage discussion on the Council list. > > Chuck > > > From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:47 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org; gnso-ppsc(a)icann.org > Subject: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting > Chuck, > > Please find enclosed a request by the PDP Work Team for a face to face > meeting in January 2010 which sets forth the rationale for needing such > a working session. This draft was discussed by the PDP Work Team on > e-mail and during two conference calls. Although there was not a > consensus on the request for such a face to face meeting within the PDP > WT, there was strong support from the RySG, the IP Constituency, the ISP > Constituency, ALAC and one of the two Business Constituency > representatives for the reasons stated within the attached document. > The Registrar representatives and 1 of the business constituency > representatives were not in favor of the request. The NCSG generally > believes that there could be a positive benefit from a face to face > meeting with the caveats expressed below. The PDP WT offers no opinion > in this document on the general role of face to face meetings, the > Councils role in approving or supporting those face to face meetings, > etc., but rather focuses on our specific request. > > The request was sent to the full Policy Process Steering Committee on > December 5, 2009, and although no comments were actually received from > any person on the PPSC that was not already a member of the PDP WT, > there were a number of e-mails on various mailing lists on this topic. > The discussions are primarily archived on two lists: (i) the PPSC list > (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/) and (ii) the PDP-WT list (the > PDP WT list - http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/). It should > be noted that the PPSC as a whole has been inactive since the formation > of the Work Teams early this year. In fact some members of the PPSC > listed at > https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?policy_process_steering_committee…, > may not be members of the Council or even active in the community. That > is a separate issue that I plan on addressing in the next few weeks. > > The NCSG arguments can be found in full at > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/msg00241.html. To summarize, > the NCSG has argued that there is not a consensus of the group in > support of (i) the rationale for the Face to Face meeting, (ii) the > appropriateness of holding such a meeting in the United States, and > (iii) the resolution of how many people from each SG or constituency > should be funded by ICANN to attend. The NCSG believes that there > should be parity of representatives funded to attend face to face > meetings by Stakeholder Group (as opposed to by Constituency). Finally, > there was a question raised as to who makes the decisions on holding and > funding these types of meetings (the Work Team, the Steering Committee, > the GNSO Council, ICANN Policy Staff, etc.). > > Whether or not we have a face to face meeting, each member of the PDP WT > with the exception of one business constituency representative believes > that the work of the PDP-WT is essential and should be of the highest > priority of the GNSO Council and community. The work being performed in > the WT was work directed to be done ultimately by the Board Governance > Committee as part of the GNSO Improvements Process. The finalization of > the Policy Development Process will guide how all future policy is made > under the new structure and as such should be resolved as quickly as > possible. The review of the PDP is incredibly broad and complex. There > are a number of difficult issues that we have been, and continue to be, > tackling in order to come up with a process acceptable to the global > Internet community. The core group of participants (including ICANN > policy staff) are diverse, knowledgeable, passionate and highly > respected members of the community and are fully committed to seeing > this process through to the end regardless of having this face to face > meeting. I have the utmost respect for each member of the team. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. I would be happy to make > myself available for the Council meeting to address any questions. > > Thank you for your consideration of our request. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman , PDP Work Team Chair > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 > Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / > jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for > the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential > and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you > have received this e-mail message in error and any review, > dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately and delete the original message. > >

1 0

RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
by Tim Ruiz 11 Dec '09

11 Dec '09

The work of the PDP-WT does not have to stop while it waits for a decision on funding for a F2F. The timing of their request in relation to when they would like to have a F2F should not be a factor here, and it is not the main issue we should be concerned with in making this decision. I have no problem discussing it at our next meeting, but would fully support putting off any vote until the next Council meeting. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Fri, December 11, 2009 10:57 am To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, "Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org> Considering the timing issues highlighted by Jeff in his request, I think Council should make an exception and discuss it at the next meeting. We should also be mindful of the precedent any decision the Council takes on this (whether for or against) will set. I am worried about the risk of generating multiple requests for F2F meetings from groups if we come out in favor of this request. I am also worried about the apparent dysfunctional nature of the PPSC that is being described here. If it is true that the PPSC has spent its last 3 teleconferences discussing its need for a F2F meeting, then this is a clear example of the system treading on its own head. If this really is the case, and I've also seen Jeff lament the lack of participation from his group (and once again, all credit to Jeff for his job as chair), then I think Council needs to call the PPSC to account before even considering any F2F meeting requests from one of the PPSC subgroups. It may be that the PPSC needs Council's help or guidance in becoming a functional group again. And that may be the first order of business for us in any PPSC discussion. Thanks, Stéphane Le 11 déc. 2009 à 17:38, Tim Ruiz a écrit : > > Chuck, > > I think Mike's point about the PDP-WT's request first being evaluated by > the PPSC is correct. The PDP-WT was formed by the PPSC, not the Council. > If the PPSC has not been consulted then I agree that it should be > consulted before the Council take any action on this. The timing of the > request in relation to the actual F2F should not be used as an excuse to > try to hurry this along. If approved, the WT can meet in February if > January doesn't work out. > > The PDP-WT has had considerable time to make the request considering > when it first came up (before Seoul). It appears to me the last three or > so conference calls have focused on it. In fact, if they'd spent their > time actually dealing with charter issues instead of debating the F2F > issue there may not be a need for a F2F. > > As you said yourself, "already budgeted GNSO Improvement funds used for > this request would not be available for funding of other such requests > in the future or for other GNSO improvement implementation actions in > this fiscal year." And, "there are no provisions in any of the documents > that govern Council operation that provide procedures for Council action > on issues like this." So I don't think it is wise for Council to rush to > a vote on this. > > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face > Meeting > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Fri, December 11, 2009 9:40 am > To: <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Cc: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, <gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org>, > "Zahid Jamil" <zahid(a)jamilandjamil.com> > > Please note my responses below Mike. Please understand that my comments > should not be interpreted to mean that I support or oppose the request. > That is a decision for the whole Council to make and the reason it is > being added to the agenda is so that the Council can consider the pros > and cons. I plan to participate in that discussion in our meeting and > will voice my personal opinions and those of the RySG in that regard > then. > > Chuck > > From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com] > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:29 AM > To: Gomes, Chuck; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'; gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face > Meeting > > > > The BC will exercise its right to push any vote on this issue to the > next meeting in Jaunuary, as we have not begun to discuss the issue and > therefore have not come to a consensus position. The issue certainly > does not warrant emergency consideration in the next 7 days, > particularly given all of the other issues we are considering these > days. > [Gomes, Chuck] To what "right" are you referring? It is correct that we > have had a consistent practice of honoring a request by any constituency > if they needed more time to consider an issue. I support that practice > if such a request is coming from a Stakeholder Group and I think even if > it comes from a constituency within a SG, so I personally would like to > request from you Mike and Zahid as Councilors from the BC, that you > would both confirm that the BC supports your request for delay. It is > my understanding that the BC has an Executive Committee, so if it is not > possible to confirm this with the full BC membership, I am sure that > your executive committee could act on my request between now and 17 > December. It has also been a practice of the Council to consider > exceptions to procedures and practices in cases where time sensitivity > is a factor. In our meeting on Thursday we will debate whether an > exception is warranted in this case as well as whether the work of this > WT is a high priority. Please note Mike that a request to delay a > decision on this means that a F2F meeting, if supported, could likely > not happen in January as proposed by the WT and that a delay until > February could possibly reduce the progress made on the PDP work before > the Nairobi meeting. Finally, considering the fact that you are a > member of the PDP WT on behalf of the BC, am I correct in assuming that > you have kept the BC membership informed of the issues the WT has > considered including the possibility of a F2F meeting on an ongoing > basis? If so, am I correct in assuming that you have already obtained > feedback from BC members on this issue? It seems to me that the BC has > had considerable time to discuss this issue, so to invoke a Council > practice may not be well justified in your case. > > Also, the PDP-WT should not be making requests of Council, especially > requests that do not have consensus even of the WT. The PPSC should be > evaluating this request now, and should make any recommendation to > Council, if any. This was the process that was agrees when we formed > the PPSC and the WTs, and there is no justification to ignore it now, > simply because a WT Chair, some of its members, and a few ICANN Staff > apparently think this is an emergency to schedule a F2F meeting. > [Gomes, Chuck] I understand that you personally oppose this request but > I encourage you not to use process and procedural arguments to advance > your personal agenda. If this is truly a BC issue, fine, but I again I > ask you and Zahid to please confirm that the BC membership and/or > executive committee supports your request for a delay. > > If Council is going to act on this request, it must be in the context of > our overall prioritization work, and not on an emergency basis as > appears to be requested. > [Gomes, Chuck] No one to my knowledge has called this an emergency but > there are clearly those who believe it is a higher priority than you do. > The goal in our upcoming meeting is to get a sense of where the full > Council is on this. And I look forward to a lively discussion on the > pros and cons. > > Mike Rodenbaugh > RODENBAUGH LAW > 548 Market Street > San Francisco, CA 94104 > (415) 738-8087 > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 6:02 AM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Cc: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org > Subject: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting > Importance: High > > > > Here is a request from Jeff Neuman, chair of the PDP WT and chair of the > PPSC, for a face-to-face (F2F) WT meeting including ICANN travel funding > support. Please ignore a previous version of Jeff's message distributed > on the Council list because it was sent to the Council list prematurely. > > Please note that a detailed request is provided in the attached file. > In preparation for our Council meeting on 17 December, please review > Jeff's message below and the attached file for discussion and possible > action by the Council in that meeting. And please forward this message > with the attachment to your respective groups immediately so that they > can do the same and provide Councilors input before 17 December and > thereby provide you any direction they have on this issue. > > Note that this request was received after the required deadline in the > Council Operation Procedures so we will have to decide whether to make > an exception to the Procedures before taking any action. The reason for > considering this exception is because the request is for a F2F meeting > in January and to delay a decision until our 7 January meeting would be > too late to allow adequate time for travel plans and other arrangements. > Also note that there are no provisions in any of the documents that > govern Council operation that provide procedures for Council action on > issues like this; we quite possibly will need to consider that topic > sometime in the future. At present though, I believe it is important > for the Council to be involved in this decision because already budgeted > GNSO Improvement funds used for this request would not be available for > funding of other such requests in the future or for other GNSO > improvement implementation actions in this fiscal year. Staff will > provide more details on funds available. > > Jeff Neuman has been invited to participate in the 17 December Council > meeting so he can be available to answer questions. > > In the meantime, I encourage discussion on the Council list. > > Chuck > > > From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:47 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org; gnso-ppsc(a)icann.org > Subject: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting > Chuck, > > Please find enclosed a request by the PDP Work Team for a face to face > meeting in January 2010 which sets forth the rationale for needing such > a working session. This draft was discussed by the PDP Work Team on > e-mail and during two conference calls. Although there was not a > consensus on the request for such a face to face meeting within the PDP > WT, there was strong support from the RySG, the IP Constituency, the ISP > Constituency, ALAC and one of the two Business Constituency > representatives for the reasons stated within the attached document. > The Registrar representatives and 1 of the business constituency > representatives were not in favor of the request. The NCSG generally > believes that there could be a positive benefit from a face to face > meeting with the caveats expressed below. The PDP WT offers no opinion > in this document on the general role of face to face meetings, the > Councils role in approving or supporting those face to face meetings, > etc., but rather focuses on our specific request. > > The request was sent to the full Policy Process Steering Committee on > December 5, 2009, and although no comments were actually received from > any person on the PPSC that was not already a member of the PDP WT, > there were a number of e-mails on various mailing lists on this topic. > The discussions are primarily archived on two lists: (i) the PPSC list > (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/) and (ii) the PDP-WT list (the > PDP WT list - http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/). It should > be noted that the PPSC as a whole has been inactive since the formation > of the Work Teams early this year. In fact some members of the PPSC > listed at > https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?policy_process_steering_committee…, > may not be members of the Council or even active in the community. That > is a separate issue that I plan on addressing in the next few weeks. > > The NCSG arguments can be found in full at > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/msg00241.html. To summarize, > the NCSG has argued that there is not a consensus of the group in > support of (i) the rationale for the Face to Face meeting, (ii) the > appropriateness of holding such a meeting in the United States, and > (iii) the resolution of how many people from each SG or constituency > should be funded by ICANN to attend. The NCSG believes that there > should be parity of representatives funded to attend face to face > meetings by Stakeholder Group (as opposed to by Constituency). Finally, > there was a question raised as to who makes the decisions on holding and > funding these types of meetings (the Work Team, the Steering Committee, > the GNSO Council, ICANN Policy Staff, etc.). > > Whether or not we have a face to face meeting, each member of the PDP WT > with the exception of one business constituency representative believes > that the work of the PDP-WT is essential and should be of the highest > priority of the GNSO Council and community. The work being performed in > the WT was work directed to be done ultimately by the Board Governance > Committee as part of the GNSO Improvements Process. The finalization of > the Policy Development Process will guide how all future policy is made > under the new structure and as such should be resolved as quickly as > possible. The review of the PDP is incredibly broad and complex. There > are a number of difficult issues that we have been, and continue to be, > tackling in order to come up with a process acceptable to the global > Internet community. The core group of participants (including ICANN > policy staff) are diverse, knowledgeable, passionate and highly > respected members of the community and are fully committed to seeing > this process through to the end regardless of having this face to face > meeting. I have the utmost respect for each member of the team. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. I would be happy to make > myself available for the Council meeting to address any questions. > > Thank you for your consideration of our request. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman , PDP Work Team Chair > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 > Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / > jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for > the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential > and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you > have received this e-mail message in error and any review, > dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately and delete the original message. > >

2 1

Fwd: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
by Stéphane Van Gelder 11 Dec '09

11 Dec '09

Message forwarded on behalf of Jeff Neuman. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > Date : 11 décembre 2009 18:04:12 HNEC > À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Cc : "Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org> > Objet : RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting > > Thanks Stephane. As chair of both the PPSC and the PDP WT, I am partly to blame for the dysfunctional nature of the PPSC as a whole. However, there has not been a need to date to recall the PPSC since there has not been an occasion to do so. The PPSC is supposed to review the work of the PDP WT as set forth in the PPSC charter. Requests for Face to Face meetings are not in the charter for the PPSC to approve. This is a first of its kind. Perhaps the PPSC Charter needs to be amended to include that, but I will leave it to the Council. > > In other words, there is nothing in the PPSC charter that requires that it reviews all requests for meetings by the PDP WT (or even the WG WT). In fact, it was thought that the two work teams would operate independently and once done with its work (or if unable to complete its work), it would reconvene the PPSC as a whole to review. > > So there are a couple of things the Council needs to review. But despite assertions by Mike that the PPSC was not consulted or did not approve, there is nothing in the charter documents that state that they have to be. Again, that may be something you want to change, but I ask that you not hold this up procedurally because we (including the Council) did not foresee this situation. > > Please forward to the Council. > > Thanks again. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 11:57 AM > To: GNSO Council > Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting > > Considering the timing issues highlighted by Jeff in his request, I think Council should make an exception and discuss it at the next meeting. > > We should also be mindful of the precedent any decision the Council takes on this (whether for or against) will set. > > I am worried about the risk of generating multiple requests for F2F meetings from groups if we come out in favor of this request. > > I am also worried about the apparent dysfunctional nature of the PPSC that is being described here. If it is true that the PPSC has spent its last 3 teleconferences discussing its need for a F2F meeting, then this is a clear example of the system treading on its own head. If this really is the case, and I've also seen Jeff lament the lack of participation from his group (and once again, all credit to Jeff for his job as chair), then I think Council needs to call the PPSC to account before even considering any F2F meeting requests from one of the PPSC subgroups. > > It may be that the PPSC needs Council's help or guidance in becoming a functional group again. And that may be the first order of business for us in any PPSC discussion. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > Le 11 déc. 2009 à 17:38, Tim Ruiz a écrit : > >> >> Chuck, >> >> I think Mike's point about the PDP-WT's request first being evaluated by >> the PPSC is correct. The PDP-WT was formed by the PPSC, not the Council. >> If the PPSC has not been consulted then I agree that it should be >> consulted before the Council take any action on this. The timing of the >> request in relation to the actual F2F should not be used as an excuse to >> try to hurry this along. If approved, the WT can meet in February if >> January doesn't work out. >> >> The PDP-WT has had considerable time to make the request considering >> when it first came up (before Seoul). It appears to me the last three or >> so conference calls have focused on it. In fact, if they'd spent their >> time actually dealing with charter issues instead of debating the F2F >> issue there may not be a need for a F2F. >> >> As you said yourself, "already budgeted GNSO Improvement funds used for >> this request would not be available for funding of other such requests >> in the future or for other GNSO improvement implementation actions in >> this fiscal year." And, "there are no provisions in any of the documents >> that govern Council operation that provide procedures for Council action >> on issues like this." So I don't think it is wise for Council to rush to >> a vote on this. >> >> >> Tim >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face >> Meeting >> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >> Date: Fri, December 11, 2009 9:40 am >> To: <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >> Cc: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, <gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org>, >> "Zahid Jamil" <zahid(a)jamilandjamil.com> >> >> Please note my responses below Mike. Please understand that my comments >> should not be interpreted to mean that I support or oppose the request. >> That is a decision for the whole Council to make and the reason it is >> being added to the agenda is so that the Council can consider the pros >> and cons. I plan to participate in that discussion in our meeting and >> will voice my personal opinions and those of the RySG in that regard >> then. >> >> Chuck >> >> From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com] >> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:29 AM >> To: Gomes, Chuck; council(a)gnso.icann.org >> Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'; gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org >> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face >> Meeting >> >> >> >> The BC will exercise its right to push any vote on this issue to the >> next meeting in Jaunuary, as we have not begun to discuss the issue and >> therefore have not come to a consensus position. The issue certainly >> does not warrant emergency consideration in the next 7 days, >> particularly given all of the other issues we are considering these >> days. >> [Gomes, Chuck] To what "right" are you referring? It is correct that we >> have had a consistent practice of honoring a request by any constituency >> if they needed more time to consider an issue. I support that practice >> if such a request is coming from a Stakeholder Group and I think even if >> it comes from a constituency within a SG, so I personally would like to >> request from you Mike and Zahid as Councilors from the BC, that you >> would both confirm that the BC supports your request for delay. It is >> my understanding that the BC has an Executive Committee, so if it is not >> possible to confirm this with the full BC membership, I am sure that >> your executive committee could act on my request between now and 17 >> December. It has also been a practice of the Council to consider >> exceptions to procedures and practices in cases where time sensitivity >> is a factor. In our meeting on Thursday we will debate whether an >> exception is warranted in this case as well as whether the work of this >> WT is a high priority. Please note Mike that a request to delay a >> decision on this means that a F2F meeting, if supported, could likely >> not happen in January as proposed by the WT and that a delay until >> February could possibly reduce the progress made on the PDP work before >> the Nairobi meeting. Finally, considering the fact that you are a >> member of the PDP WT on behalf of the BC, am I correct in assuming that >> you have kept the BC membership informed of the issues the WT has >> considered including the possibility of a F2F meeting on an ongoing >> basis? If so, am I correct in assuming that you have already obtained >> feedback from BC members on this issue? It seems to me that the BC has >> had considerable time to discuss this issue, so to invoke a Council >> practice may not be well justified in your case. >> >> Also, the PDP-WT should not be making requests of Council, especially >> requests that do not have consensus even of the WT. The PPSC should be >> evaluating this request now, and should make any recommendation to >> Council, if any. This was the process that was agrees when we formed >> the PPSC and the WTs, and there is no justification to ignore it now, >> simply because a WT Chair, some of its members, and a few ICANN Staff >> apparently think this is an emergency to schedule a F2F meeting. >> [Gomes, Chuck] I understand that you personally oppose this request but >> I encourage you not to use process and procedural arguments to advance >> your personal agenda. If this is truly a BC issue, fine, but I again I >> ask you and Zahid to please confirm that the BC membership and/or >> executive committee supports your request for a delay. >> >> If Council is going to act on this request, it must be in the context of >> our overall prioritization work, and not on an 'emergency' basis as >> appears to be requested. >> [Gomes, Chuck] No one to my knowledge has called this an emergency but >> there are clearly those who believe it is a higher priority than you do. >> The goal in our upcoming meeting is to get a sense of where the full >> Council is on this. And I look forward to a lively discussion on the >> pros and cons. >> >> Mike Rodenbaugh >> RODENBAUGH LAW >> 548 Market Street >> San Francisco, CA 94104 >> (415) 738-8087 >> http://rodenbaugh.com >> >> >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] >> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck >> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 6:02 AM >> To: council(a)gnso.icann.org >> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org >> Subject: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting >> Importance: High >> >> >> >> Here is a request from Jeff Neuman, chair of the PDP WT and chair of the >> PPSC, for a face-to-face (F2F) WT meeting including ICANN travel funding >> support. Please ignore a previous version of Jeff's message distributed >> on the Council list because it was sent to the Council list prematurely. >> >> Please note that a detailed request is provided in the attached file. >> In preparation for our Council meeting on 17 December, please review >> Jeff's message below and the attached file for discussion and possible >> action by the Council in that meeting. And please forward this message >> with the attachment to your respective groups immediately so that they >> can do the same and provide Councilors input before 17 December and >> thereby provide you any direction they have on this issue. >> >> Note that this request was received after the required deadline in the >> Council Operation Procedures so we will have to decide whether to make >> an exception to the Procedures before taking any action. The reason for >> considering this exception is because the request is for a F2F meeting >> in January and to delay a decision until our 7 January meeting would be >> too late to allow adequate time for travel plans and other arrangements. >> Also note that there are no provisions in any of the documents that >> govern Council operation that provide procedures for Council action on >> issues like this; we quite possibly will need to consider that topic >> sometime in the future. At present though, I believe it is important >> for the Council to be involved in this decision because already budgeted >> GNSO Improvement funds used for this request would not be available for >> funding of other such requests in the future or for other GNSO >> improvement implementation actions in this fiscal year. Staff will >> provide more details on funds available. >> >> Jeff Neuman has been invited to participate in the 17 December Council >> meeting so he can be available to answer questions. >> >> In the meantime, I encourage discussion on the Council list. >> >> Chuck >> >> >> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] >> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:47 PM >> To: Gomes, Chuck >> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org; gnso-ppsc(a)icann.org >> Subject: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting >> Chuck, >> >> Please find enclosed a request by the PDP Work Team for a face to face >> meeting in January 2010 which sets forth the rationale for needing such >> a working session. This draft was discussed by the PDP Work Team on >> e-mail and during two conference calls. Although there was not a >> consensus on the request for such a face to face meeting within the PDP >> WT, there was strong support from the RySG, the IP Constituency, the ISP >> Constituency, ALAC and one of the two Business Constituency >> representatives for the reasons stated within the attached document. >> The Registrar representatives and 1 of the business constituency >> representatives were not in favor of the request. The NCSG generally >> believes that there could be a positive benefit from a face to face >> meeting with the caveats expressed below. The PDP WT offers no opinion >> in this document on the general role of face to face meetings, the >> Council's role in approving or supporting those face to face meetings, >> etc., but rather focuses on our specific request. >> >> The request was sent to the full Policy Process Steering Committee on >> December 5, 2009, and although no comments were actually received from >> any person on the PPSC that was not already a member of the PDP WT, >> there were a number of e-mails on various mailing lists on this topic. >> The discussions are primarily archived on two lists: (i) the PPSC list >> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/) and (ii) the PDP-WT list (the >> PDP WT list - http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/). It should >> be noted that the PPSC as a whole has been inactive since the formation >> of the Work Teams early this year. In fact some members of the PPSC >> listed at >> https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?policy_process_steering_committee…, >> may not be members of the Council or even active in the community. That >> is a separate issue that I plan on addressing in the next few weeks. >> >> The NCSG arguments can be found in full at >> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/msg00241.html. To summarize, >> the NCSG has argued that there is not a consensus of the group in >> support of (i) the rationale for the Face to Face meeting, (ii) the >> appropriateness of holding such a meeting in the United States, and >> (iii) the resolution of how many people from each SG or constituency >> should be funded by ICANN to attend. The NCSG believes that there >> should be parity of representatives funded to attend face to face >> meetings by Stakeholder Group (as opposed to by Constituency). Finally, >> there was a question raised as to who makes the decisions on holding and >> funding these types of meetings (the Work Team, the Steering Committee, >> the GNSO Council, ICANN Policy Staff, etc.). >> >> Whether or not we have a face to face meeting, each member of the PDP WT >> with the exception of one business constituency representative believes >> that the work of the PDP-WT is essential and should be of the highest >> priority of the GNSO Council and community. The work being performed in >> the WT was work directed to be done ultimately by the Board Governance >> Committee as part of the GNSO Improvements Process. The finalization of >> the Policy Development Process will guide how all future policy is made >> under the new structure and as such should be resolved as quickly as >> possible. The review of the PDP is incredibly broad and complex. There >> are a number of difficult issues that we have been, and continue to be, >> tackling in order to come up with a process acceptable to the global >> Internet community. The core group of participants (including ICANN >> policy staff) are diverse, knowledgeable, passionate and highly >> respected members of the community and are fully committed to seeing >> this process through to the end regardless of having this face to face >> meeting. I have the utmost respect for each member of the team. >> >> Please let me know if you have any questions. I would be happy to make >> myself available for the Council meeting to address any questions. >> >> Thank you for your consideration of our request. >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman , PDP Work Team Chair >> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy >> 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 >> Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / >> jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for >> the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential >> and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you >> have received this e-mail message in error and any review, >> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly >> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please >> notify us immediately and delete the original message. >> >> >

1 0

Re: [council] FW: [REGYCON] FW: March 2009 Meeting in Kenya - Warnings
by rosemary.sinclair＠atug.org.au 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

Chuck Thanks for this - I have been watching Aust Government Travel Warnings Cheers Rosemary Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus -----Original Message----- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 06:46:00 To: GNSO Council<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] FW: [REGYCON] FW: March 2009 Meeting in Kenya - Warnings The issues of safety and security in Nairobi were discussed today in the RySG meeting. As a result, Jeff Neuman as Vice Chair of the RySG sent the following message to Craig Schwartz, Chief Registry Liaison. I am sending this to the full Council because I am sure that all of us considering attending the meetings in Kenya have similar concerns and like to receive the type of information that the RySG has requested. Chuck From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 1:39 PM To: Craig Schwartz Cc: doug.brent(a)icann.org; Kurt Pritz; greg.rattray(a)icann.org; Neuman, Jeff Subject: March 2009 Meeting in Kenya - Warnings Craig, On the RySG call this morning, a number of members of the RySG expressed significant concerns about the meeting in Kenya and on what security measures are being taken by ICANN to protect the attendees. This includes not only at the Venue site, but also transportation to and from the airport to the hotels as well as travel between the hotels and the venue site (since they are not in the same location). We note that a number of countries including the United States, Australia, Germany, the UK, Canada and New Zealand have all issues incredibly strong warnings against travel to Kenya. See some excerpts we have provided below. We also understand that ICANN intends on spending a considerable amount of money on security measures, but to date, we do not know what those are and whether those protections will be made available to the attendees other than the ICANN Board and staff. A number of registries have decided to either not attend or send a significant lesser number of representatives to the meeting as a result of the travel warnings simply because they do not have the resources to spend on the security measures that may be required. We would appreciate a prompt response on this as we are all in the process of making our decisions on whether to attend the meeting and making the appropriate accommodations. Thanks. ********************************* United States The U.S. Department of State warns U.S. citizens of the risks of travel to Kenya. American citizens in Kenya and those considering travel to Kenya should evaluate their personal security situation in light of continuing threats from terrorism and the high rate of violent crime. Violent and sometimes fatal criminal attacks, including armed carjackings and home invasions/burglaries, can occur at any time and in any location, particularly in Nairobi. As recently as June 2008, U.S. Embassy personnel were victims of carjackings. In the short-term, the continued displacement of thousands of people by the recent civil unrest combined with endemic poverty and the availability of weapons could result in an increase in crime, both petty and violent. Kenyan authorities have limited capacity to deter or investigate such acts or prosecute perpetrators. American citizens in Kenya should be extremely vigilant with regard to their personal security, particularly in public places frequented by foreigners such as clubs, hotels, resorts, upscale shopping centers, restaurants, and places of worship. *CRIME:* There is a high rate of crime in all regions of Kenya, particularly Nairobi, Mombasa, Kisumu, and at coastal beach resorts. There are regular reports of attacks against tourists by groups of armed assailants. Pickpockets and thieves carry out "snatch and run" crimes on city streets and near crowds. Visitors have found it safer not to carry valuables, but rather to store them in hotel safety deposit boxes or safe rooms. However, there have been reports of safes being stolen from hotel rooms and hotel desk staff being forced to open safes. Walking alone or at night, especially in downtown areas, public parks, along footpaths, on beaches, and in poorly lit areas, is dangerous and discouraged. Violent criminal attacks, including armed carjacking and home invasions/burglary, can occur at any time and in any location, and are becoming increasingly frequent, brazen, vicious, and often fatal. In early 2007, two American citizens were killed and one critically injured in two separate carjacking incidents. Nairobi averages about ten vehicle hijackings per day and Kenyan authorities have limited capacity to deter and investigate such acts. Matatus (public transportation) tend to be targeted since they carry up to 14 passengers. Although these attacks are often violent, victims are generally not injured if they do not resist. There is also a high incidence of residential break-ins and occupants should take additional security measures to protect their property. Thieves and con artists have been known to impersonate police officers, thus Americans are strongly encouraged to ask for identification if approached by individuals identifying themselves as police officials, uniformed or not. Thieves routinely snatch jewelry and other objects from open vehicle windows while motorists are either stopped at traffic lights or in heavy traffic. Vehicle windows should be up and doors locked regardless of the time of day or weather. Thieves on matatus, buses and trains may steal valuables from inattentive passengers. Americans should guard their backpacks or hand luggage and ensure these items are not left unattended. Purchasing items from street vendors is strongly discouraged – visitors should only use reputable stores or businesses. Many scams, perpetrated against unsuspecting tourists, are prevalent in and around the city of Nairobi. Many of these involve people impersonating police officers and using fake police ID badges and other credentials. Nevertheless, police checkpoints are common in Kenya and all vehicles are required to stop if directed to do so. Highway banditry is common in much of North Eastern Province, Eastern Province, the northern part of Coast Province, and the northern part of the Rift Valley Province. These areas are remote and sparsely populated. Incidents also occur occasionally on Kenya's main highways, particularly after dark. Due to increased bandit activity, air travel is the recommended means of transportation when visiting any of the coastal resorts north of Malindi. Travelers to North Eastern Kenya and the North Rift Valley Region should travel with the police escorts or convoys organized by the government of Kenya. There has been an increase in armed banditry in or near many of Kenya’s national parks and game reserves, particularly the Samburu, Leshaba, and Masai Mara game reserves. In response, the Kenya Wildlife Service and police have taken some steps to strengthen security in the affected areas, but the problem has not been eliminated. Travelers who do not use the services of reputable travel firms or knowledgeable guides or drivers are especially at risk. Safaris are best undertaken with a minimum of two vehicles so that there is a backup in case of mechanical failure or other emergency. Solo camping is always risky. Australia Crime The level of crime in Nairobi is high. Violent crime against Westerners, including armed carjacking, kidnapping for ransom and home invasions, occurs frequently and can be brazen and brutal. There have been fatalities. Anecdotal evidence suggests that foreigners are increasingly being targeted in homes, tourist areas and while travelling by road. You should avoid walking or travelling after dark or on isolated roads, especially in downtown areas, public parks, along footpaths or on beaches, and remain vigilant during daylight hours. Muggings and burglaries are common, particularly after dark. Jewellery and bag-snatching from open vehicle windows frequently occur while motorists are either stopped at traffic lights or in heavy traffic. When driving, you should ensure that windows are up, doors are locked and valuables are out of sight. * We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in Kenya at this time due to the high risk of terrorist attack, civil unrest and high crime levels. * We are receiving an increasing number of reports that terrorists may be planning attacks against a range of targets in Kenya, including Kenyan or Western interests. Western embassies, UN premises, shopping areas frequented by Westerners, hotels, tourist resorts, safari lodges and other places frequented by foreigners may be particular targets. In planning your activities, you should avoid the kinds of places known to be terrorist targets. * Foreign embassies, hotels and commercial airlines in Kenya have been targeted by terrorists in the past and remain potential targets. See Safety and Security: Terrorism <http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Kenya#Safety_and_Security <http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Kenya#Safety_and_Security> > for details. Canada Canadians are advised to exercise a high degree of caution because of the potential of terrorist actions against Western interests throughout Kenya. Attacks could occur at any time and could target areas frequented by expatriates and foreign travellers. Canadians should be aware that the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed simultaneously in 1998. The potential for carjackings and robberies of tourists travelling to and from Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) and Nairobi, particularly at night, continues to be of concern. Travellers arriving at JKIA should only use transportation organized by reputable tour companies or well-marked taxis. Currency should not be exchanged in the public areas of the airport. Checked luggage may be pilfered at the airport. Travellers should store their valuables in securely locked hand luggage and suitcases. Nairobi and its surrounding regions have experienced an increase in violent incidents in recent months. There has been a particularly high number of incidents involving the Mungiki criminal gang and police forces, following the death of several high-level members of the Mungiki sect in April 2008. Although the majority of Mungiki-related incidents have been located in and around Nairobi, this sect has spread its activities to other parts of the country. In April 2009, fighting erupted between residents of the town of Karatina in Central province and members of this gang. More than 20 people were reportedly killed and several others injured. In recent months, foreign nationals have been the victims of daytime carjackings and kidnappings in neighbourhoods normally deemed safe during daylight hours. Travellers should be vigilant and avoid heavily populated areas of major cities to minimize the risk of being caught up in violent clashes. In Nairobi, travellers should particularly avoid the Kibera, Mathare, Kasirani, and Eastleigh neighbourhoods. New Zealand There is high risk to your security throughout Kenya and we advise against all tourist and other non-essential travel due to the threat from terrorism, civil unrest and violent crime. Violent crime including car-jacking, home invasion and armed robbery is increasing. These attacks can occur anywhere at anytime and can be fatal. New Zealanders are advised to be extremely security conscious at all times and avoid travelling at night. There is a high threat from terrorism in Kenya. Previous terrorist attacks in Kenya have been against visibly Western targets. Particular care should be taken in public and commercial areas known to be frequented by foreigners including airports, hotels, bars, restaurants, clubs, tourist areas, embassies, shopping areas, outdoor recreation events and expatriate housing areas. UK *There is a high threat from terrorism in Kenya. Attacks could be indiscriminate, including in places frequented by expatriates and foreign travelers. Previous attacks have included a bomb attack on a hotel, which resulted in significant loss of life, and an unsuccessful attempt to bring down a civilian airliner in Mombasa, both in November 2002. Terrorism There is a high threat from terrorism in Kenya. Attacks could be indiscriminate, including in places frequented by expatriates and foreign travelers. While there have not been any terrorist attacks in Kenya since 2002, we know that Al-Qaeda has the potential to carry out attacks against Western targets. The leadership of Al-Shabaab, a Somalia based Islamist insurgency group, have publicly threatened to attack Kenya should the Kenyan government provide support to the Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG). Muggings and armed attacks by gangs can occur at any time, particularly in Nairobi and Mombasa. Do not carry credit cards or cash cards unless you must: people have been forced by thieves to withdraw cash. Beware of thieves posing as police officers; always ask to see identification. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/> ---------------- The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

1 0

AW: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
by KnobenW＠telekom.de 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

Liz, That fully meets my expectation, too. I was also uncertain about the procedure which body should decide upon. Since relevant pro and con arguments have lengthly been exchanged and lay on the table in written form I think it's time to finish this story now by a council decision on a related motion. Chuck, if you agree, I'll draft that motion and will send it to you tomorrow (after an ISPCP call) for further appropriate discussion on council level. In case the council will discuss and take a vote I would suggest to put it on the agenda as a dedicated item, not under AOB. Mike: With great respect to your opinion I must say that I can't see any intention or indication to qualify any WT's work in terms of more or less importance. It may be just the same signal to be sent when we'll set council's priorities - which btw is already an ongoing task. In this respect I would allocate a higher priority rank to all "framing" work the results of which shall be to some extent serve as a prerequisite for other important work. To my understanding the PDP gives a basic frame for council work. That's why it is given special reference to in the bylaws. I would appreciate very much if you could join my suggestion on dealing with the matter next council meeting and bring up your arguments to this occasion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Dear everyone Whilst the commentary on who should go, why, for how much and what for is interesting, where is the decision about whether the F2F meeting is actually happening or not? Valuable work time is being wasted when this is a simple administrative matter to be decided by the Council (I think it's the Council?) The proposed dates are rapidly approaching and people either need to allocate the time to those proposed days or not. Who makes that decision and when will it be made? Somebody, please make an appropriate motion, vote on it and get done with it. Liz On 10 Dec 2009, at 07:21, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: > > As a WT member, I have never believed this WT needs a F2F meeting, > and find > the rationale in the document flimsy. If there is a F2F meeting, > Staff and > the WG Chair ought not be deciding who gets to go, or who is funded. > > As a Councilor, I think this work is low priority compared to most > of the > other ongoing efforts, and it should be up to Council to decide > about these > matters, not Staff and/or a WG itself. > > By unilaterally deeming this work so important, Staff sends a strong > signal > to all of the other WGs that their work is not as important. I take > strong > exception to that. Perhaps the lack of volunteer interest in this > group, > which in fact is a major reason for the proposed F2F meeting, is the > strongest indicator that this work is not a high priority for the > community. > Many other WGs have much stronger participation, and all of them > would like > to finish their work ASAP too, and surely a F2F meeting would assist > in that > regard. > > Sorry I missed that this had gone to the PPSC, since I am on the > PPSC, and > the PPSC-PDP-WT, and there is a lot of cross-posting to those lists, > it is > difficult to keep track. We agreed at the outset that any call for > consensus of the PPSC would be clearly labeled as such, and Jeff's > request > was not. Also it was heavy-handed and misleading, insofar as the WT > should > not be coming directly to Council, as that is what the PPSC is for. > The > required next step is for the PPSC to consider this request, and > then make a > recommendation to Council, as that has not been done yet. > > Mike Rodenbaugh > RODENBAUGH LAW > 548 Market Street > San Francisco, CA 94104 > (415) 738-8087 > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org > ] > On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:22 PM > To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org > Cc: Gomes, Chuck > Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face > Meeting > > > Mike, > > Can I drill down on your concern a little bit for clarification. Is > it > your concern as a Work Team member about the face to face meeting, > or is > it in your capacity as a Councilor? Do you not believe the work team > would benefit from a face to face meeting? Do you agree or disagree > with the rationale for a meeting as reflected in the document? Do you > agree or disagree with who gets funding as proposed in the request? > > Or, as you have expressed, your concerns really are really related to > believing the GNSO Council has higher priorities, should consider > budget, the work is not important, etc..... > > If your concerns are the ones in the first paragraph above, then > please > let the group know because I believe those are the ones relevant to > our > request to the Council. If your concerns are related to the second > paragraph, I do not mean to belittle them, but the place for those > arguments are not in the request itself, but rather in your Council > deliberations on the request. That is the reason I did not include > them > in my note. You have every right, and frankly should, bring up your > concerns to the council about priorities, funding in general for F2F > meetings, just like the registrars have done. But I am not sure that > those concerns should be documented in the request itself. > > Please let me know your thoughts. > > Thanks. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for > the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential > and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient > you > have received this e-mail message in error and any review, > dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately and delete the original message. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:37 PM > To: 'Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org'; 'GNSO Council' > Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face > Meeting > > > I also did not and do not support this, and would have expected it > to go > to > the PPSC before the Council, as that is the structure we deliberately > put in > place at the beginning of this process. > > Mike Rodenbaugh > RODENBAUGH LAW > 548 Market Street > San Francisco, CA 94104 > (415) 738-8087 > http://rodenbaugh.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 3:53 PM > To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face > Meeting > > > Hi, > > I do believe you misrepresented the full consensus on the team as I > did > not > participate in such consensus. > > I also think you have distorted the NCSG reasoning very prejudicially. > > I also do not believe you even asked for a PPSC consensus call. > > a. > > On 10 Dec 2009, at 00:17, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >> Chuck, >> >> Please find enclosed a request by the PDP Work Team for a face to >> face > meeting in January 2010 setting for the rationale for needing such a > working > session. This draft was discussed by the PDP Work Team. There was a > consensus within the PDP WT for such a face to face meeting for the > reasons > stated within the attached document and should address some of the > concerns > that we have seen on the GNSO Council list over the past several > weeks. > We > offer no opinion in this document on the general role of face to face > meetings, the Council role in approving or supporting those face to > face > meetings, etc., but rather focus on our specific request. >> >> The request was sent to the full Policy Process Steering Committee on > December 5, 2009, and although no comments were actually received from > any > person on the PPSC that was not already a member of the PDP WT, there > were > some comments from the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group with respect to > who > was eligible for funding from ICANN. The discussions are archived on > two > lists (the PPSC list: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/) and the > PDP-WT list (the PDP WT list - > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/). > It should be noted that the PPSC as a whole has been inactive since > the > formation of the Work Teams early this year. In fact some members of > the > PPSC listed at > https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?policy_process_steering_commit > tee_ > ppsc, may not be members of the Council or even active in the > community. > >> >> What follows is my brief summary of the issues raised to the best of > my > knowledge. If I have misstated any of the arguments, I apologize in > advance, and would be happy to be corrected. Essentially, the PDP > WT is > recommending that 1 person be funded by ICANN staff from each > constituency > to attend the face to face. The NCSG has argued that there should be > the > same number of representatives from each of the Stakeholder groups, > which > would mean that if ICANN provides funding for the three CSG > constituencies > to attend, then it should fund three reps from the NCSG, RySG and RrSG > to > attend as well (as opposed to the recommended 1 from the NCSG, RySG > and > RrSG). The argument is that we have now reorganized into SGs and > parity > should be provided on an SG basis as opposed to constituency basis, > and > that > the NCSG believes that this policy will exclude participation from the > noncommercial users. It is important to note that neither the > Registries > nor the Registrars have raised tho! > se arguments nor do they agree with the NCSG view. >> >> ICANN staff has responded to the NCSG stating that participation in > the > PDP WT has never been exclusionary and that the Work Team has been > open > to > anyone wanting to participate on-line, in conference calls, etc. > However, > "enhancing participation on the WT does not equate to getting funded > to > attend a particular F2F meeting. This WT has always been open for > anyone > to > participate and any group to be represented. Every effort has been > made > to > try to get input and participation from all Constituencies and > Stakeholder > Groups, including by setting up surveys and requesting input on > documents > and discussions. It is troubling to see that only funded travel > seems to > drive a sudden need for 'adequate representation' while this interest > level > seems to have been missing when it came to participation in the WT's > previous 20 calls and 3 surveys. This F2F meeting is actually about > genuine > participation and about bringing the discussions of those 20 calls > and 3 > surveys together into con! > clusions so the public, the PPSC and the GNSO have a concrete initial > draft > to consider." >> >> As Chair of the PDP WT, my personal view, for what it is worth, is > more in > line with ICANN staff's view. I believe it is not the quantity of > persons > funded to attend the face to face that should matter, but rather the > quality. I need to do my job to make sure all view points are heard, > discussed, and addressed whether it is one person making the > argument or > three. The fact is that we have not had three reps from the NCSG > participate on a regular basis in the WT and to have three reps for > the > sake > of having an equal number of representatives to me does not make > sense. > My > view is that the most important reason for requesting this face to > face > meeting is to make progress on the work of the WT. To introduce new > players > into the process now, after a year's worth of calls, meetings, > surveys, > reports, etc. at a face to face meeting for the first time may not be > lend > itself to a productive meeting. On the other hand, if the ICANN staff > and/or Council do decide that it is in ! > the best interest of the Internet Community to allow all SGs > (including > Registries and Registrars by the way) to have 3 reps funded, then we > will > need to ensure that those participants are up to speed on the work, > have > read all of the materials, and that we do not recover old ground. >> >> Please let me know if you have any questions. I would be happy to > make > myself available for the Council meeting to address any questions. >> >> Thank you for your consideration of our request. >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman , PDP Work Team Chair >> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy >> 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 >> Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: >> +1.703.738.7965 > / > jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz >> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for > the > use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/ > or > privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have > received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, > distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If > you > have > received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and > delete the original message. >> >> <Request for a PDP WT Face to Face meeting - updated 3 December > 2009.doc> > > > > >

4 4

RE: [gnso-ppsc] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
by Mike Rodenbaugh 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

Chuck, I completely agree, meanwhile we must try to deal with reality... and the Council needs to prioritize based on that reality. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-ppsc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 12:03 PM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; Neuman, Jeff; Stéphane Van Gelder; Avri Doria Cc: gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org; gnso-ppsc(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting Mike, You provide an excellent example of why one of the key GNSO improvement goals is to spread the work load across more participants and hence minimize the number of groups that any one person is a member of. When this doesn't happen, it not impacts the person who is involved in the many groups but also those in the groups that person belongs to. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-ppsc(a)icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 2:54 PM > To: 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Avri Doria' > Cc: gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org; gnso-ppsc(a)icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a > PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting > > > I hope the group will note there has also been a ton of > activity with the STI this week, plus the RAP-WG and the RAA > team, a new IDN-WG, and BC administration, all of which I > have not been able to keep up on... as I am trying to run a > law practice and am having a hectic week. ICANN policy > development cannot be based on in person calls and F2F > meetings, it is not scalable and tends to enshrine a relative > few insiders as the prime movers of policy development. More > needs to be done on the list and via open tools, to have > broader participation, even if at a much slower pace for some > efforts (i.e. the glacial pace of the RAP-WG and the RAA > amendment effort). > > Mike Rodenbaugh > RODENBAUGH LAW > 548 Market Street > San Francisco, CA 94104 > (415) 738-8087 > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-ppsc(a)icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 11:40 AM > To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Avri Doria > Cc: gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org; gnso-ppsc(a)icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a > PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting > > > Which are reflected in the document that will be sent to the > Council. > > Mike - Sorry we missed you again on the call today. It would > really help the group for you to be present when these > discussions take place. > > Thanks. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended > only for the > use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain > confidential and/or > privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have > received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, > distribution, or copying of this message is strictly > prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and > delete the original message. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:28 PM > To: Avri Doria > Cc: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org; gnso-ppsc(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a > PDP Work Team > Face to Face Meeting > > I would add "with clearly stated and quantifiable objectives" > for the F2F > meeting... > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > Le 10 déc. 2009 à 15:55, Avri Doria a écrit : > > > > > Hi, > > > > There may be positive value if the face to face meeting is > done properly > with equal and balanced representation in a reasonably International > location. > > Otherwise there is negative value. > > > > a. > > > > On 10 Dec 2009, at 13:50, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > > > >> Avri, > >> > >> Thanks for this and I will respond more fully today. But just so I > understand the complete picture. Putting aside the questions > of funding, > number of reps, etc, do you believe there is value in a face > to face meeting > and do you agree with the rationale. On the last call, Alex > did agree that > this subject was important and did believe there was value in > a face to face > with all of the caveats above. > >> > >> Mike is making an argument that there is little value to > such a meeting > and I would like the ncsg view on that. > >> > >> Once we determine there is value, which I believe there > has already been > a consensus opinion on, then we can and should address the > other issues. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. > >> Vice President, Law & Policy > >> NeuStar, Inc. > >> Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.biz > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> > >> To: Neuman, Jeff > >> Cc: Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org <gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org>; PPSC > <gnso-ppsc(a)icann.org> > >> Sent: Thu Dec 10 06:40:36 2009 > >> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a > PDP Work Team > Face to Face Meeting > >> > >> > >> On 10 Dec 2009, at 10:56, Avri Doria wrote: > >> > >>> And Chuck who was the alternate is not the council chair > >> > >> Not not, but now! > >> > >> If this is going to be attached to the motion going to the > council as an > opposing opinion, please use the corrected version below. > >> > >> a. > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi Jeff, > >> > >> Thank you for the opportunity to give some more detail. > >> > >> I made 3 points, which I will cover separately. > >> > >> 1. That you did not have the consensus in the PDP group. > >> > >> While I think you could possibly claim that you have some > degree of rough > consensus, there are those of us, myself included, who > objected to various > aspects of the plan. > >> > >> - Not everyone was convinced of the need for the F2F. > Personally I feel > that if the volunteer corps and the staff had spent as much > time focusing on > the issues as they spent planning and talking about the trip > we would be a > lot further along. Of late, the trip has become the major topic of > discussion in the WT. > >> > >> - There were issues of the appropriateness of holding the > meeting in the > US. Considering the visa hell, especially time, expenses and > denigration, > some people have to go through to get visas into the US, this > does not do > much to represent ICANN's new more international face. > >> > >> - There were issues of how many people from each SG or constituency > should be sent. > >> > >> - There were disagreements to what extent the Policy Staff > answers to the > PPSC and Council in deciding on these trips and the details > of the trip - > with the Policy Staff stating that these things were in their > purview - not > the councils. It is still uncertain whether the Policy Staff > is willing to > abide by the decision of the council on this issue. It is > still uncertain > that the council is being given the full details of the full > budget for the > trip. > >> > >> Finally on this point, while I remember a fair amount of > conversation > about the trip, I do not recall a consensus call of the PDP Work Team > members. > >> > >> 2. That you distorted the NCSG reasoning very prejudicially > >> > >> When I say you distorted, I do not claim that any > particular statement > you made was false. I am sure all of the things you mention > can be found in > the record. But they way in which you covered them minimized > some of the > important aspects of the argument while emphasizing others in > a minimizing > way. I also think you left out some of the counter > arguments, only giving > your, and perhaps the majority, arguments for the positions taken. > >> > >> - Yes several of us from the NCSG argued that the > distribution should be > the same for all SGs. We also agreed that no SG needed to > send the full > number possible, that was their choice. So if 3 was the > proper number for > one SG, then it would only be fair and balanced to offer > other SGs the same > opportunity. There was no obligation, specifically > mentioned, that they > would need to utilize the 3 paid seats. Also, the issue was > parity not the > specific number. If 3 is too many for everybody, then fewer, > even down to 1 > per SG would still be parity. The issue was parity between > the groups, not > the number of seats qua seats. When trying to reach > decisions on something > as major as the new PDP process, full and equal opportunity > of participation > in a critical meeting to resolve the remaining hard issues > must be afforded > equally across the SGs. If it is too expensive to include > full and equal > representation, then perhaps the meeting should be reconsidered. > >> > >> - Another important point in the discussion is that we should be > functioning along SG lines in terms of apportioning seats in > any trip. That > is, that it no longer made sense in the reorganized GNSO to > apportion for > SGs for 3 of them, and Constituencies in the case of the CSG. > All SGs are > equal and should be treated that way. > >> > >> - A specific discussion was held on the importance of > adding new people > to the mix at this point in the process. While you reiterated your > arguments for why adding new people was not a good idea, you > left out the > arguments for why it was important to some of us. > >> Specifically: > >> -- The AOC has presented us with a new situation > especially with regard > to clause' 9.1 Ensuring accountability, transparency and the > interests of > global Internet users' and clause '(e) assessing the policy > development > process to facilitate enhanced cross community deliberations, > and effective > and timely policy development.' The argument was that often > it is necessary > to add new people to a mix in order to review a new set of > requirements, as > those who have been laboring under the old set of > requirements are not fully > capable of properly integrating new requirements - it is just > human nature. > >> -- As someone pointed out, the majority of the members of > the group were > North Americans. It only seems appropriate that this should > cause the group > to desperately work to add people from other regions. While the final > report did include an NCSG representative from Africa, > getting him on the > list was like pulling teeth - and I do appreciate the part > you took as chair > in making sure he was added to the list. Here we had a new > participant to > the ICANN who was initially and insistently told by Policy > Staff that he > should not come because he was a newcomer to ICANN. > >> -- It was assumed that new people would not do their > homework and read > pervious mailing list discussions or listen to recording of previous > meetings. I think this is slanderous, I think most new > participants will do > their homework and when they don't it is obvious and the > group can deal with > those exceptions. I would also be interested in knowing that > all of those > who are considered old attendees because they were at half or > fewer of the > meetings have listened to the recordings of all the meeting > they missed. I > assume they did, so why assume the new people won't. > >> > >> - You quote the Policy Staff's argument that attending the > F2F does not > correspond to participation and that being excluded from a > F2F does not > constitute being excluded from the process. Several of us > disagreed with > this assumption, but these arguments were not represented. > ICANN has been > totally incapable of offering reliable remote participation > at a F2F meeting > - not its fault - it is a difficult thing to do on a global > basis. A remote > participant may hear a bit of the conversation and may > occasionally get a > word in edgewise, but cannot really participate. This is > especially so when > things get touchy and people take a break to go off and > huddle in smaller > groups to come up with the compromises. Also once a F2F has > occurred, those > who were not there and have been effectively excluded from > the nitty-gritty > discussions are often told "but we discussed this at length > in the F2F and > this is what we compromised on - how can you reopen this > issue now - didn't > you read t! > h! > > e transcript?" This is not full and equal representation. > Often a common > mind set is established at a F2F; this is a good thing for > groups consensus, > except that it leaves out those who were not adequately > represented. I ask > again, if being at the F2F is not critical for getting to > consensus and > everything decided at the F2F is still open for further discussion and > deliberation, why hold a F2F at all? > >> > >> - The NCSG is not the NCUC of old, as it has 3 appointed > Board Council > members in addition to continuing to grow faster then any > other SG. No > outreach was made to these new members of the council who > were picked to > represent 3 communities that the Board felt were not > adequately represented > in our community. It seems some effort should have been > taken to bring > these new people into the process. And perhaps even a seat > should have been > offered to them (or some of them or someone they designated). > Of course had > NCSG been offered 3 seats instead of just 1, this might have > been dealt > with. > >> > >> - That although a seat was made available for ALAC, > certainly something > the NCSG agrees with, no provision was made for the GAC > member who has added > much to some of the dialogue. I would note that he did respond to the > doodle poll (http://www.doodle.com/u6ta33ik4r5mk52g) > >> > >> 3. That you had not gone to the PPSC. > >> > >> First, yes it is true that I am no longer a member of the > PPSC as I am no > longer an NCA and no longer council chair. However the > alternate NCA, Olga > Cavalli, still is an NCA. And Chuck who was the alternate is > now the council > chair - so both of my old hats are covered by others. I was > not saying you > did not get my consensus in the PPSC but rather that you did > not have it in > the PDP-WT. > >> > >> Second if I remember correctly a consensus call in the > PPSC was deemed to > be a polled consensus, not a passive consensus, where each of > the members, > or alternate if primary was unavailable, was directly asked > for a yes or > now. Sending message out on 5 Dec and declaring on 9 Dec that no one > answered, is not the PPSC process I remember. > >> > >> You also say that some of the PPSC members are no longer > part of council. > This is irrelevant. The PPSC was made up of constituency > representatives > not necessarily Council members, except in the case of NCAs and the > chair/vice-chair. In all cases, I think that either the > Primary or the > Secondary is still a community participant. It is true, that the PPSC > should have been reconstituted right after Seoul (and this > may be true of > the OSC as well) with a call to all of the SGs for updating of > representatives. As you are chair of the PPSC, it seems that > perhaps this > was your responsibility. > >> > >> This incident has brought out one issue in the conflict > of interest > between the chair of a delegated body and the chair of the > chartering body. > You are chair of both. In this case, I do believe your zeal > to do what you > saw as your duty as PDP-WT chair has perhaps overridden your > desire to be a > strict taskmaster in the PPSC. This is natural and not > mentioned as a > personal criticism. But it is one of the reasons why I > generally argue > against the chair of a chartering body, or even one of its > members, being > the chair of a delegated body. In this case, since you had a > PPSC alternate > chair, it might have been better for Jay Scott to have > handled the PPSC > responsibilities in regard to the PDP-WT, with you still > being in position > to handle the chair duties in regard to the WG-WT. > >> > >> Again, thank you for the opportunity to respond to your > declaration of > consensus. > >> > >> a. > >> > >> > >> On 10 Dec 2009, at 00:59, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >> > >>> Avri, > >>> > >>> I apologize if you believe that. I thought I was taking > some of the > language from your e-mails, but like I said, I am happy to be > corrected. > Can you please point out what has been distorted so I can make sure th > record is corrected? > >>> > >>> Thanks. > >>> > >>> > >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. > >>> Vice President, Law & Policy > >>> NeuStar, Inc. > >>> Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.biz > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org > <owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org> > >>> To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org <gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org> > >>> Sent: Wed Dec 09 18:52:34 2009 > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team > Face to Face > Meeting > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I do believe you misrepresented the full consensus on the > team as I did > not participate in such consensus. > >>> > >>> I also think you have distorted the NCSG reasoning very > prejudicially. > >>> > >>> I also do not believe you even asked for a PPSC consensus call. > >>> > >>> a. > >>> > >>> On 10 Dec 2009, at 00:17, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >>> > >>>> Chuck, > >>>> > >>>> Please find enclosed a request by the PDP Work Team for > a face to face > meeting in January 2010 setting for the rationale for needing > such a working > session. This draft was discussed by the PDP Work Team. There was a > consensus within the PDP WT for such a face to face meeting > for the reasons > stated within the attached document and should address some > of the concerns > that we have seen on the GNSO Council list over the past > several weeks. We > offer no opinion in this document on the general role of face to face > meetings, the Council role in approving or supporting those > face to face > meetings, etc., but rather focus on our specific request. > >>>> > >>>> The request was sent to the full Policy Process Steering > Committee on > December 5, 2009, and although no comments were actually > received from any > person on the PPSC that was not already a member of the PDP > WT, there were > some comments from the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group with > respect to who > was eligible for funding from ICANN. The discussions are > archived on two > lists (the PPSC list: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/) and the > PDP-WT list (the PDP WT list > -http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/). > It should be noted that the PPSC as a whole has been inactive > since the > formation of the Work Teams early this year. In fact some > members of the > PPSC listed at > https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?policy_process_steer > ing_committee_ > ppsc, may not be members of the Council or even active in the > community. > >>>> > >>>> What follows is my brief summary of the issues raised to > the best of my > knowledge. If I have misstated any of the arguments, I apologize in > advance, and would be happy to be corrected. Essentially, > the PDP WT is > recommending that 1 person be funded by ICANN staff from each > constituency > to attend the face to face. The NCSG has argued that there > should be the > same number of representatives from each of the Stakeholder > groups, which > would mean that if ICANN provides funding for the three CSG > constituencies > to attend, then it should fund three reps from the NCSG, RySG > and RrSG to > attend as well (as opposed to the recommended 1 from the > NCSG, RySG and > RrSG). The argument is that we have now reorganized into SGs > and parity > should be provided on an SG basis as opposed to constituency > basis, and that > the NCSG believes that this policy will exclude participation from the > noncommercial users. It is important to note that neither > the Registries > nor the Registrars have raised ! > > t! > >> hose arguments nor do they agree with the NCSG view. > >>>> > >>>> ICANN staff has responded to the NCSG stating that > participation in the > PDP WT has never been exclusionary and that the Work Team has > been open to > anyone wanting to participate on-line, in conference calls, > etc. However, > "enhancing participation on the WT does not equate to getting > funded to > attend a particular F2F meeting. This WT has always been open > for anyone to > participate and any group to be represented. Every effort has > been made to > try to get input and participation from all Constituencies > and Stakeholder > Groups, including by setting up surveys and requesting input > on documents > and discussions. It is troubling to see that only funded > travel seems to > drive a sudden need for 'adequate representation' while this > interest level > seems to have been missing when it came to participation in the WT's > previous 20 calls and 3 surveys. This F2F meeting is actually > about genuine > participation and about bringing the discussions of those 20 > calls and 3 > surveys together into c! > >> onclusions so the public, the PPSC and the GNSO have a > concrete initial > draft to consider." > >>>> > >>>> As Chair of the PDP WT, my personal view, for what it is > worth, is more > in line with ICANN staff's view. I believe it is not the quantity of > persons funded to attend the face to face that should matter, > but rather the > quality. I need to do my job to make sure all view points are heard, > discussed, and addressed whether it is one person making the > argument or > three. The fact is that we have not had three reps from the NCSG > participate on a regular basis in the WT and to have three > reps for the sake > of having an equal number of representatives to me does not > make sense. My > view is that the most important reason for requesting this > face to face > meeting is to make progress on the work of the WT. To > introduce new players > into the process now, after a year's worth of calls, > meetings, surveys, > reports, etc. at a face to face meeting for the first time > may not be lend > itself to a productive meeting. On the other hand, if the ICANN staff > and/or Council do decide that it is ! > > i! > >> n the best interest of the Internet Community to allow all > SGs (including > Registries and Registrars by the way) to have 3 reps funded, > then we will > need to ensure that those participants are up to speed on the > work, have > read all of the materials, and that we do not recover old ground. > >>>> > >>>> Please let me know if you have any questions. I would > be happy to make > myself available for the Council meeting to address any questions. > >>>> > >>>> Thank you for your consideration of our request. > >>>> > >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman , PDP Work Team Chair > >>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > >>>> 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 > >>>> Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: > +1.703.738.7965 > / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz > >>>> The information contained in this e-mail message is > intended only for > the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain > confidential and/or > privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have > received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, > distribution, or copying of this message is strictly > prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and > delete the original message. > >>>> > >>>> <Request for a PDP WT Face to Face meeting - updated 3 December > 2009.doc> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >

1 0

FW: [REGYCON] FW: March 2009 Meeting in Kenya - Warnings
by Gomes, Chuck 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

The issues of safety and security in Nairobi were discussed today in the RySG meeting. As a result, Jeff Neuman as Vice Chair of the RySG sent the following message to Craig Schwartz, Chief Registry Liaison. I am sending this to the full Council because I am sure that all of us considering attending the meetings in Kenya have similar concerns and like to receive the type of information that the RySG has requested. Chuck From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 1:39 PM To: Craig Schwartz Cc: doug.brent(a)icann.org; Kurt Pritz; greg.rattray(a)icann.org; Neuman, Jeff Subject: March 2009 Meeting in Kenya - Warnings Craig, On the RySG call this morning, a number of members of the RySG expressed significant concerns about the meeting in Kenya and on what security measures are being taken by ICANN to protect the attendees. This includes not only at the Venue site, but also transportation to and from the airport to the hotels as well as travel between the hotels and the venue site (since they are not in the same location). We note that a number of countries including the United States, Australia, Germany, the UK, Canada and New Zealand have all issues incredibly strong warnings against travel to Kenya. See some excerpts we have provided below. We also understand that ICANN intends on spending a considerable amount of money on security measures, but to date, we do not know what those are and whether those protections will be made available to the attendees other than the ICANN Board and staff. A number of registries have decided to either not attend or send a significant lesser number of representatives to the meeting as a result of the travel warnings simply because they do not have the resources to spend on the security measures that may be required. We would appreciate a prompt response on this as we are all in the process of making our decisions on whether to attend the meeting and making the appropriate accommodations. Thanks. ********************************* United States The U.S. Department of State warns U.S. citizens of the risks of travel to Kenya. American citizens in Kenya and those considering travel to Kenya should evaluate their personal security situation in light of continuing threats from terrorism and the high rate of violent crime. Violent and sometimes fatal criminal attacks, including armed carjackings and home invasions/burglaries, can occur at any time and in any location, particularly in Nairobi. As recently as June 2008, U.S. Embassy personnel were victims of carjackings. In the short-term, the continued displacement of thousands of people by the recent civil unrest combined with endemic poverty and the availability of weapons could result in an increase in crime, both petty and violent. Kenyan authorities have limited capacity to deter or investigate such acts or prosecute perpetrators. American citizens in Kenya should be extremely vigilant with regard to their personal security, particularly in public places frequented by foreigners such as clubs, hotels, resorts, upscale shopping centers, restaurants, and places of worship. *CRIME:* There is a high rate of crime in all regions of Kenya, particularly Nairobi, Mombasa, Kisumu, and at coastal beach resorts. There are regular reports of attacks against tourists by groups of armed assailants. Pickpockets and thieves carry out "snatch and run" crimes on city streets and near crowds. Visitors have found it safer not to carry valuables, but rather to store them in hotel safety deposit boxes or safe rooms. However, there have been reports of safes being stolen from hotel rooms and hotel desk staff being forced to open safes. Walking alone or at night, especially in downtown areas, public parks, along footpaths, on beaches, and in poorly lit areas, is dangerous and discouraged. Violent criminal attacks, including armed carjacking and home invasions/burglary, can occur at any time and in any location, and are becoming increasingly frequent, brazen, vicious, and often fatal. In early 2007, two American citizens were killed and one critically injured in two separate carjacking incidents. Nairobi averages about ten vehicle hijackings per day and Kenyan authorities have limited capacity to deter and investigate such acts. Matatus (public transportation) tend to be targeted since they carry up to 14 passengers. Although these attacks are often violent, victims are generally not injured if they do not resist. There is also a high incidence of residential break-ins and occupants should take additional security measures to protect their property. Thieves and con artists have been known to impersonate police officers, thus Americans are strongly encouraged to ask for identification if approached by individuals identifying themselves as police officials, uniformed or not. Thieves routinely snatch jewelry and other objects from open vehicle windows while motorists are either stopped at traffic lights or in heavy traffic. Vehicle windows should be up and doors locked regardless of the time of day or weather. Thieves on matatus, buses and trains may steal valuables from inattentive passengers. Americans should guard their backpacks or hand luggage and ensure these items are not left unattended. Purchasing items from street vendors is strongly discouraged - visitors should only use reputable stores or businesses. Many scams, perpetrated against unsuspecting tourists, are prevalent in and around the city of Nairobi. Many of these involve people impersonating police officers and using fake police ID badges and other credentials. Nevertheless, police checkpoints are common in Kenya and all vehicles are required to stop if directed to do so. Highway banditry is common in much of North Eastern Province, Eastern Province, the northern part of Coast Province, and the northern part of the Rift Valley Province. These areas are remote and sparsely populated. Incidents also occur occasionally on Kenya's main highways, particularly after dark. Due to increased bandit activity, air travel is the recommended means of transportation when visiting any of the coastal resorts north of Malindi. Travelers to North Eastern Kenya and the North Rift Valley Region should travel with the police escorts or convoys organized by the government of Kenya. There has been an increase in armed banditry in or near many of Kenya's national parks and game reserves, particularly the Samburu, Leshaba, and Masai Mara game reserves. In response, the Kenya Wildlife Service and police have taken some steps to strengthen security in the affected areas, but the problem has not been eliminated. Travelers who do not use the services of reputable travel firms or knowledgeable guides or drivers are especially at risk. Safaris are best undertaken with a minimum of two vehicles so that there is a backup in case of mechanical failure or other emergency. Solo camping is always risky. Australia Crime The level of crime in Nairobi is high. Violent crime against Westerners, including armed carjacking, kidnapping for ransom and home invasions, occurs frequently and can be brazen and brutal. There have been fatalities. Anecdotal evidence suggests that foreigners are increasingly being targeted in homes, tourist areas and while travelling by road. You should avoid walking or travelling after dark or on isolated roads, especially in downtown areas, public parks, along footpaths or on beaches, and remain vigilant during daylight hours. Muggings and burglaries are common, particularly after dark. Jewellery and bag-snatching from open vehicle windows frequently occur while motorists are either stopped at traffic lights or in heavy traffic. When driving, you should ensure that windows are up, doors are locked and valuables are out of sight. * We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in Kenya at this time due to the high risk of terrorist attack, civil unrest and high crime levels. * We are receiving an increasing number of reports that terrorists may be planning attacks against a range of targets in Kenya, including Kenyan or Western interests. Western embassies, UN premises, shopping areas frequented by Westerners, hotels, tourist resorts, safari lodges and other places frequented by foreigners may be particular targets. In planning your activities, you should avoid the kinds of places known to be terrorist targets. * Foreign embassies, hotels and commercial airlines in Kenya have been targeted by terrorists in the past and remain potential targets. See Safety and Security: Terrorism <http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Kenya#Safety_and_Sec urity> for details. Canada Canadians are advised to exercise a high degree of caution because of the potential of terrorist actions against Western interests throughout Kenya. Attacks could occur at any time and could target areas frequented by expatriates and foreign travellers. Canadians should be aware that the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed simultaneously in 1998. The potential for carjackings and robberies of tourists travelling to and from Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) and Nairobi, particularly at night, continues to be of concern. Travellers arriving at JKIA should only use transportation organized by reputable tour companies or well-marked taxis. Currency should not be exchanged in the public areas of the airport. Checked luggage may be pilfered at the airport. Travellers should store their valuables in securely locked hand luggage and suitcases. Nairobi and its surrounding regions have experienced an increase in violent incidents in recent months. There has been a particularly high number of incidents involving the Mungiki criminal gang and police forces, following the death of several high-level members of the Mungiki sect in April 2008. Although the majority of Mungiki-related incidents have been located in and around Nairobi, this sect has spread its activities to other parts of the country. In April 2009, fighting erupted between residents of the town of Karatina in Central province and members of this gang. More than 20 people were reportedly killed and several others injured. In recent months, foreign nationals have been the victims of daytime carjackings and kidnappings in neighbourhoods normally deemed safe during daylight hours. Travellers should be vigilant and avoid heavily populated areas of major cities to minimize the risk of being caught up in violent clashes. In Nairobi, travellers should particularly avoid the Kibera, Mathare, Kasirani, and Eastleigh neighbourhoods. New Zealand There is high risk to your security throughout Kenya and we advise against all tourist and other non-essential travel due to the threat from terrorism, civil unrest and violent crime. Violent crime including car-jacking, home invasion and armed robbery is increasing. These attacks can occur anywhere at anytime and can be fatal. New Zealanders are advised to be extremely security conscious at all times and avoid travelling at night. There is a high threat from terrorism in Kenya. Previous terrorist attacks in Kenya have been against visibly Western targets. Particular care should be taken in public and commercial areas known to be frequented by foreigners including airports, hotels, bars, restaurants, clubs, tourist areas, embassies, shopping areas, outdoor recreation events and expatriate housing areas. UK *There is a high threat from terrorism in Kenya. Attacks could be indiscriminate, including in places frequented by expatriates and foreign travelers. Previous attacks have included a bomb attack on a hotel, which resulted in significant loss of life, and an unsuccessful attempt to bring down a civilian airliner in Mombasa, both in November 2002. Terrorism There is a high threat from terrorism in Kenya. Attacks could be indiscriminate, including in places frequented by expatriates and foreign travelers. While there have not been any terrorist attacks in Kenya since 2002, we know that Al-Qaeda has the potential to carry out attacks against Western targets. The leadership of Al-Shabaab, a Somalia based Islamist insurgency group, have publicly threatened to attack Kenya should the Kenyan government provide support to the Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG). Muggings and armed attacks by gangs can occur at any time, particularly in Nairobi and Mombasa. Do not carry credit cards or cash cards unless you must: people have been forced by thieves to withdraw cash. Beware of thieves posing as police officers; always ask to see identification. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

2 1

RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
by Mike Rodenbaugh 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

As a WT member, I have never believed this WT needs a F2F meeting, and find the rationale in the document flimsy. If there is a F2F meeting, Staff and the WG Chair ought not be deciding who gets to go, or who is funded. As a Councilor, I think this work is low priority compared to most of the other ongoing efforts, and it should be up to Council to decide about these matters, not Staff and/or a WG itself. By unilaterally deeming this work so important, Staff sends a strong signal to all of the other WGs that their work is not as important. I take strong exception to that. Perhaps the lack of volunteer interest in this group, which in fact is a major reason for the proposed F2F meeting, is the strongest indicator that this work is not a high priority for the community. Many other WGs have much stronger participation, and all of them would like to finish their work ASAP too, and surely a F2F meeting would assist in that regard. Sorry I missed that this had gone to the PPSC, since I am on the PPSC, and the PPSC-PDP-WT, and there is a lot of cross-posting to those lists, it is difficult to keep track. We agreed at the outset that any call for consensus of the PPSC would be clearly labeled as such, and Jeff's request was not. Also it was heavy-handed and misleading, insofar as the WT should not be coming directly to Council, as that is what the PPSC is for. The required next step is for the PPSC to consider this request, and then make a recommendation to Council, as that has not been done yet. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:22 PM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org Cc: Gomes, Chuck Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting Mike, Can I drill down on your concern a little bit for clarification. Is it your concern as a Work Team member about the face to face meeting, or is it in your capacity as a Councilor? Do you not believe the work team would benefit from a face to face meeting? Do you agree or disagree with the rationale for a meeting as reflected in the document? Do you agree or disagree with who gets funding as proposed in the request? Or, as you have expressed, your concerns really are really related to believing the GNSO Council has higher priorities, should consider budget, the work is not important, etc..... If your concerns are the ones in the first paragraph above, then please let the group know because I believe those are the ones relevant to our request to the Council. If your concerns are related to the second paragraph, I do not mean to belittle them, but the place for those arguments are not in the request itself, but rather in your Council deliberations on the request. That is the reason I did not include them in my note. You have every right, and frankly should, bring up your concerns to the council about priorities, funding in general for F2F meetings, just like the registrars have done. But I am not sure that those concerns should be documented in the request itself. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:37 PM To: 'Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org'; 'GNSO Council' Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting I also did not and do not support this, and would have expected it to go to the PPSC before the Council, as that is the structure we deliberately put in place at the beginning of this process. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 3:53 PM To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting Hi, I do believe you misrepresented the full consensus on the team as I did not participate in such consensus. I also think you have distorted the NCSG reasoning very prejudicially. I also do not believe you even asked for a PPSC consensus call. a. On 10 Dec 2009, at 00:17, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > Chuck, > > Please find enclosed a request by the PDP Work Team for a face to face meeting in January 2010 setting for the rationale for needing such a working session. This draft was discussed by the PDP Work Team. There was a consensus within the PDP WT for such a face to face meeting for the reasons stated within the attached document and should address some of the concerns that we have seen on the GNSO Council list over the past several weeks. We offer no opinion in this document on the general role of face to face meetings, the Council role in approving or supporting those face to face meetings, etc., but rather focus on our specific request. > > The request was sent to the full Policy Process Steering Committee on December 5, 2009, and although no comments were actually received from any person on the PPSC that was not already a member of the PDP WT, there were some comments from the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group with respect to who was eligible for funding from ICANN. The discussions are archived on two lists (the PPSC list: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/) and the PDP-WT list (the PDP WT list - http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/). It should be noted that the PPSC as a whole has been inactive since the formation of the Work Teams early this year. In fact some members of the PPSC listed at https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?policy_process_steering_commit tee_ ppsc, may not be members of the Council or even active in the community. > > What follows is my brief summary of the issues raised to the best of my knowledge. If I have misstated any of the arguments, I apologize in advance, and would be happy to be corrected. Essentially, the PDP WT is recommending that 1 person be funded by ICANN staff from each constituency to attend the face to face. The NCSG has argued that there should be the same number of representatives from each of the Stakeholder groups, which would mean that if ICANN provides funding for the three CSG constituencies to attend, then it should fund three reps from the NCSG, RySG and RrSG to attend as well (as opposed to the recommended 1 from the NCSG, RySG and RrSG). The argument is that we have now reorganized into SGs and parity should be provided on an SG basis as opposed to constituency basis, and that the NCSG believes that this policy will exclude participation from the noncommercial users. It is important to note that neither the Registries nor the Registrars have raised tho! se arguments nor do they agree with the NCSG view. > > ICANN staff has responded to the NCSG stating that participation in the PDP WT has never been exclusionary and that the Work Team has been open to anyone wanting to participate on-line, in conference calls, etc. However, "enhancing participation on the WT does not equate to getting funded to attend a particular F2F meeting. This WT has always been open for anyone to participate and any group to be represented. Every effort has been made to try to get input and participation from all Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups, including by setting up surveys and requesting input on documents and discussions. It is troubling to see that only funded travel seems to drive a sudden need for 'adequate representation' while this interest level seems to have been missing when it came to participation in the WT's previous 20 calls and 3 surveys. This F2F meeting is actually about genuine participation and about bringing the discussions of those 20 calls and 3 surveys together into con! clusions so the public, the PPSC and the GNSO have a concrete initial draft to consider." > > As Chair of the PDP WT, my personal view, for what it is worth, is more in line with ICANN staff's view. I believe it is not the quantity of persons funded to attend the face to face that should matter, but rather the quality. I need to do my job to make sure all view points are heard, discussed, and addressed whether it is one person making the argument or three. The fact is that we have not had three reps from the NCSG participate on a regular basis in the WT and to have three reps for the sake of having an equal number of representatives to me does not make sense. My view is that the most important reason for requesting this face to face meeting is to make progress on the work of the WT. To introduce new players into the process now, after a year's worth of calls, meetings, surveys, reports, etc. at a face to face meeting for the first time may not be lend itself to a productive meeting. On the other hand, if the ICANN staff and/or Council do decide that it is in ! the best interest of the Internet Community to allow all SGs (including Registries and Registrars by the way) to have 3 reps funded, then we will need to ensure that those participants are up to speed on the work, have read all of the materials, and that we do not recover old ground. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. I would be happy to make myself available for the Council meeting to address any questions. > > Thank you for your consideration of our request. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman , PDP Work Team Chair > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 > Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. > > <Request for a PDP WT Face to Face meeting - updated 3 December 2009.doc>

2 1

ccNSO update + Travel DT + OSC CSG WT + Geo Regions WG
by Olga Cavalli 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

*ccNSO Update* Mozambique (.mz) is now the 100th member of the ccNSO. ccNSO membership statistics can be found at http://ccnso.icann.org/about/ccnso-membership-august-2003-november-2009.pdf. ccNSO is in the process of appointing a co-chair for the Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN wg. At its meeting in Seoul the ccNSO Council appointed Young Eum Lee and Ondrej Filip as co-chairs of a “wildcard” study group, which is in the process of proposing a statement of activities to be adopted by the Council. After adoption of that statement the co-chairs would seek members from the community and set up a liaison with SSAC. ......................................................................................................................................... *Travel Drafting Team* Names of constituencies and stakeholder groups that will participate in the Kenia meeting and will be funded by ICANN must be informed to ICANN Staff as soon as possible. .......................................................................................................................................... *GNSO Improvements: OSC CSG Working Team* The toolkit recommendations are ready for Council approval in the next meeting. Other parts of the draft documents are in new rounds of revision, they are: - Framework for participation in any ICANN Constituency that is objective, standardized, and clearly stated - Creating and maintaining a database of all constituency members and others not formally a part of any constituency - Recommendations for operating principles that are representative, open, transparent and democratic. Meetings of the wt take place every two weeks. ....................................................................................................................................... *Geo Regions WG *There will be a wide Survey to understanding the relevance and use of Regions in ICANN. The group and Staff are working on the final version of this document. ..........................................................................................................……………………… * *

2 3

FW: [council] FW: [REGYCON] FW: March 2009 Meeting in Kenya - Warnings
by Gomes, Chuck 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

Denise, Would you please arrange for someone from ICANN Staff to give a briefing to the Council regarding ICANN's plans to ensure safety and security in Nairobi? I suspect that some plans may still be being finalized but community members need to decide soon whether they are going to attend the meetings in person so they can make travel plans, so as much information as possible would be helpful. Thanks, Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:20 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] FW: [REGYCON] FW: March 2009 Meeting in Kenya - Warnings Would it be possible to receive a briefing about this issue from ICANN staff at our meeting next week? I realize the request provides only a week's lead time, but the security issue is an important one (if not the dispositive one) in deciding whether to seek travel support and, if so, for whom. If there are concerns about having the briefing recorded, I would have no objection to having that portion of the meeting not be recorded. Thanks! K Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette(a)cov.com This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. ------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Wed Dec 09 14:27:31 2009 Subject: [council] FW: [REGYCON] FW: March 2009 Meeting in Kenya - Warnings The issues of safety and security in Nairobi were discussed today in the RySG meeting. As a result, Jeff Neuman as Vice Chair of the RySG sent the following message to Craig Schwartz, Chief Registry Liaison. I am sending this to the full Council because I am sure that all of us considering attending the meetings in Kenya have similar concerns and like to receive the type of information that the RySG has requested. Chuck From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 1:39 PM To: Craig Schwartz Cc: doug.brent(a)icann.org; Kurt Pritz; greg.rattray(a)icann.org; Neuman, Jeff Subject: March 2009 Meeting in Kenya - Warnings Craig, On the RySG call this morning, a number of members of the RySG expressed significant concerns about the meeting in Kenya and on what security measures are being taken by ICANN to protect the attendees. This includes not only at the Venue site, but also transportation to and from the airport to the hotels as well as travel between the hotels and the venue site (since they are not in the same location). We note that a number of countries including the United States, Australia, Germany, the UK, Canada and New Zealand have all issues incredibly strong warnings against travel to Kenya. See some excerpts we have provided below. We also understand that ICANN intends on spending a considerable amount of money on security measures, but to date, we do not know what those are and whether those protections will be made available to the attendees other than the ICANN Board and staff. A number of registries have decided to either not attend or send a significant lesser number of representatives to the meeting as a result of the travel warnings simply because they do not have the resources to spend on the security measures that may be required. We would appreciate a prompt response on this as we are all in the process of making our decisions on whether to attend the meeting and making the appropriate accommodations. Thanks. ********************************* United States The U.S. Department of State warns U.S. citizens of the risks of travel to Kenya. American citizens in Kenya and those considering travel to Kenya should evaluate their personal security situation in light of continuing threats from terrorism and the high rate of violent crime. Violent and sometimes fatal criminal attacks, including armed carjackings and home invasions/burglaries, can occur at any time and in any location, particularly in Nairobi. As recently as June 2008, U.S. Embassy personnel were victims of carjackings. In the short-term, the continued displacement of thousands of people by the recent civil unrest combined with endemic poverty and the availability of weapons could result in an increase in crime, both petty and violent. Kenyan authorities have limited capacity to deter or investigate such acts or prosecute perpetrators. American citizens in Kenya should be extremely vigilant with regard to their personal security, particularly in public places frequented by foreigners such as clubs, hotels, resorts, upscale shopping centers, restaurants, and places of worship. *CRIME:* There is a high rate of crime in all regions of Kenya, particularly Nairobi, Mombasa, Kisumu, and at coastal beach resorts. There are regular reports of attacks against tourists by groups of armed assailants. Pickpockets and thieves carry out "snatch and run" crimes on city streets and near crowds. Visitors have found it safer not to carry valuables, but rather to store them in hotel safety deposit boxes or safe rooms. However, there have been reports of safes being stolen from hotel rooms and hotel desk staff being forced to open safes. Walking alone or at night, especially in downtown areas, public parks, along footpaths, on beaches, and in poorly lit areas, is dangerous and discouraged. Violent criminal attacks, including armed carjacking and home invasions/burglary, can occur at any time and in any location, and are becoming increasingly frequent, brazen, vicious, and often fatal. In early 2007, two American citizens were killed and one critically injured in two separate carjacking incidents. Nairobi averages about ten vehicle hijackings per day and Kenyan authorities have limited capacity to deter and investigate such acts. Matatus (public transportation) tend to be targeted since they carry up to 14 passengers. Although these attacks are often violent, victims are generally not injured if they do not resist. There is also a high incidence of residential break-ins and occupants should take additional security measures to protect their property. Thieves and con artists have been known to impersonate police officers, thus Americans are strongly encouraged to ask for identification if approached by individuals identifying themselves as police officials, uniformed or not. Thieves routinely snatch jewelry and other objects from open vehicle windows while motorists are either stopped at traffic lights or in heavy traffic. Vehicle windows should be up and doors locked regardless of the time of day or weather. Thieves on matatus, buses and trains may steal valuables from inattentive passengers. Americans should guard their backpacks or hand luggage and ensure these items are not left unattended. Purchasing items from street vendors is strongly discouraged - visitors should only use reputable stores or businesses. Many scams, perpetrated against unsuspecting tourists, are prevalent in and around the city of Nairobi. Many of these involve people impersonating police officers and using fake police ID badges and other credentials. Nevertheless, police checkpoints are common in Kenya and all vehicles are required to stop if directed to do so. Highway banditry is common in much of North Eastern Province, Eastern Province, the northern part of Coast Province, and the northern part of the Rift Valley Province. These areas are remote and sparsely populated. Incidents also occur occasionally on Kenya's main highways, particularly after dark. Due to increased bandit activity, air travel is the recommended means of transportation when visiting any of the coastal resorts north of Malindi. Travelers to North Eastern Kenya and the North Rift Valley Region should travel with the police escorts or convoys organized by the government of Kenya. There has been an increase in armed banditry in or near many of Kenya's national parks and game reserves, particularly the Samburu, Leshaba, and Masai Mara game reserves. In response, the Kenya Wildlife Service and police have taken some steps to strengthen security in the affected areas, but the problem has not been eliminated. Travelers who do not use the services of reputable travel firms or knowledgeable guides or drivers are especially at risk. Safaris are best undertaken with a minimum of two vehicles so that there is a backup in case of mechanical failure or other emergency. Solo camping is always risky. Australia Crime The level of crime in Nairobi is high. Violent crime against Westerners, including armed carjacking, kidnapping for ransom and home invasions, occurs frequently and can be brazen and brutal. There have been fatalities. Anecdotal evidence suggests that foreigners are increasingly being targeted in homes, tourist areas and while travelling by road. You should avoid walking or travelling after dark or on isolated roads, especially in downtown areas, public parks, along footpaths or on beaches, and remain vigilant during daylight hours. Muggings and burglaries are common, particularly after dark. Jewellery and bag-snatching from open vehicle windows frequently occur while motorists are either stopped at traffic lights or in heavy traffic. When driving, you should ensure that windows are up, doors are locked and valuables are out of sight. * We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in Kenya at this time due to the high risk of terrorist attack, civil unrest and high crime levels. * We are receiving an increasing number of reports that terrorists may be planning attacks against a range of targets in Kenya, including Kenyan or Western interests. Western embassies, UN premises, shopping areas frequented by Westerners, hotels, tourist resorts, safari lodges and other places frequented by foreigners may be particular targets. In planning your activities, you should avoid the kinds of places known to be terrorist targets. * Foreign embassies, hotels and commercial airlines in Kenya have been targeted by terrorists in the past and remain potential targets. See Safety and Security: Terrorism <http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Kenya#Safety_and_Sec urity> for details. Canada Canadians are advised to exercise a high degree of caution because of the potential of terrorist actions against Western interests throughout Kenya. Attacks could occur at any time and could target areas frequented by expatriates and foreign travellers. Canadians should be aware that the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed simultaneously in 1998. The potential for carjackings and robberies of tourists travelling to and from Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) and Nairobi, particularly at night, continues to be of concern. Travellers arriving at JKIA should only use transportation organized by reputable tour companies or well-marked taxis. Currency should not be exchanged in the public areas of the airport. Checked luggage may be pilfered at the airport. Travellers should store their valuables in securely locked hand luggage and suitcases. Nairobi and its surrounding regions have experienced an increase in violent incidents in recent months. There has been a particularly high number of incidents involving the Mungiki criminal gang and police forces, following the death of several high-level members of the Mungiki sect in April 2008. Although the majority of Mungiki-related incidents have been located in and around Nairobi, this sect has spread its activities to other parts of the country. In April 2009, fighting erupted between residents of the town of Karatina in Central province and members of this gang. More than 20 people were reportedly killed and several others injured. In recent months, foreign nationals have been the victims of daytime carjackings and kidnappings in neighbourhoods normally deemed safe during daylight hours. Travellers should be vigilant and avoid heavily populated areas of major cities to minimize the risk of being caught up in violent clashes. In Nairobi, travellers should particularly avoid the Kibera, Mathare, Kasirani, and Eastleigh neighbourhoods. New Zealand There is high risk to your security throughout Kenya and we advise against all tourist and other non-essential travel due to the threat from terrorism, civil unrest and violent crime. Violent crime including car-jacking, home invasion and armed robbery is increasing. These attacks can occur anywhere at anytime and can be fatal. New Zealanders are advised to be extremely security conscious at all times and avoid travelling at night. There is a high threat from terrorism in Kenya. Previous terrorist attacks in Kenya have been against visibly Western targets. Particular care should be taken in public and commercial areas known to be frequented by foreigners including airports, hotels, bars, restaurants, clubs, tourist areas, embassies, shopping areas, outdoor recreation events and expatriate housing areas. UK *There is a high threat from terrorism in Kenya. Attacks could be indiscriminate, including in places frequented by expatriates and foreign travelers. Previous attacks have included a bomb attack on a hotel, which resulted in significant loss of life, and an unsuccessful attempt to bring down a civilian airliner in Mombasa, both in November 2002. Terrorism There is a high threat from terrorism in Kenya. Attacks could be indiscriminate, including in places frequented by expatriates and foreign travelers. While there have not been any terrorist attacks in Kenya since 2002, we know that Al-Qaeda has the potential to carry out attacks against Western targets. The leadership of Al-Shabaab, a Somalia based Islamist insurgency group, have publicly threatened to attack Kenya should the Kenyan government provide support to the Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG). Muggings and armed attacks by gangs can occur at any time, particularly in Nairobi and Mombasa. Do not carry credit cards or cash cards unless you must: people have been forced by thieves to withdraw cash. Beware of thieves posing as police officers; always ask to see identification. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

2 1