December 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: AW: [council] Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 3, 2009

Dec. 3, 2009

> All that is being recommended here is, if a SG or constituency > decides to hold a F2F meeting and would like Staff assistance > for doing that, then they could opt to use that service if they > like. Is that really what is meant there? That's not how I took it. If in fact that is the intent, then I agree with Stephane that the RrSG is very unlikely to support it or to vote for the motion. The decision on how ICANN's budget is set should not be at the sole discretion of any SG or constituency. How does ICANN budget for that? I would think at the very least, the SG or constituency would first petition the GNSO Council in some manner. The Council would work with Staff to make a decision based on priorities, budget, etc. If instead, what was meant is that such funding is possibly available with Council/Staff approval, that makes sense. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: AW: [council] Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Thu, December 03, 2009 8:37 am To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Stephane, I find this very surprising and extremely disappointing. The RrSG has representation on the CSG WT and there was no concern expressed from the RrSG. The CSG WT sought comments from SGs months ago and there was no concern from the RrSG. The RrSG has representation on the OSC and no concern was expressed from the RrSG. The recommendations were sent to the full Council list on 5 Nov for discussion and comment and the topic was raised for discussion on the 23 Nov Council meeting; still no RrSG comment. Now a motion is made after many months of comment solicitation, and you say the RrSG may not support the motion. Am I missing something here? More specifically to the point of the recommendations, you seem to be talking about ICANN funding for F2F meetings. The Toolkit of Services recommendations say nothing about that. The recommendations simply say that one of the services that could be made available for SGs and constituencies is support for arranging face-to-face meetings for SGs and constituencies. They make no reference to doing that for WTs, WGs, or other GNSO organizations besides constituencies and SGs; in fact, a more general approach that left it open to other organizations was rejected. All that is being recommended here is, if a SG or constituency decides to hold a F2F meeting and would like Staff assistance for doing that, then they could opt to use that service if they like. Chuck From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 8:02 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: AW: [council] Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups As written, I would think that the RrSG would find it difficult to support TK recommendations considering that the second one is requesting: Support for organizing face-to-face meetings (e.g. date/time, location, equipment, telephone bridge and, in certain venues, arranging accommodations) I know the email I sent to the Council list a few days ago raising the issue of a tendency towards more and more requests for F2F meetings for WTs and DTs has not generated much discussion. I do hope this is simply because people have other things on their plate and not that the issue is of no interest to anyone. Perhaps this motion, and the contents of the TK recommendations, will generate some discussion on the matter... Thanks, Stéphane Le 3 déc. 2009 à 09:52, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> a écrit : Chuck, I'd like to second this motion but have one question regarding to the "resolved": does "sharing the recommendations with the board.." mean that there is no further need for board approval? In this case the council might direct staff to execute the recommendations. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2009 06:33 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups I am making this motion for action in our 17 Dec 09 Council meeting. Glen - Please post this per normal practice. Thanks. Chuck Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups Motion by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by: Whereas the Board Governance Committee Report on GNSO Improvements (BGC Report) tasked ICANN staff with developing, within six months, in consultation with the GNSO Council, a tool kit of basic services that would be made available to all constituencies. (See Report of the Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group on GNSO Improvements, 3 February 2008 located at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-0…, p. 46.); Whereas the ICANN Board approved the BGC GNSO Improvement Recommendations on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182) Whereas in January 2009 the GNSO Council formed the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) to develop recommendations to implement operational changes contained in the BGC Report; Whereas the OSC established three Work Teams, including the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team, to take on the work of each of the three operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations; Whereas the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team developed and approved Tool Kit Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups on 25 October 2009 and sent them to the OSC for review; Whereas the OSC accepted the Work Team's recommendations; Whereas on 5 Nov 09 the document was distributed to the Council list and Councilors were asked to forward the recommendations to their respective groups for review and comment ASAP with the tentative goal of Council action in our December meeting; RESOLVED, the Council accepts the recommendations (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/tool-kit-services-recommendations-for-gnso-05n…) and directs Staff to share the recommendations with the Board and post the document on the GNSO web page at http://gnso.icann.org/.

2 1

Discussion around face 2 face meetings
by Denise Michel Dec. 3, 2009

Dec. 3, 2009

Dear Stéphane, Thank you for your email about the proposed PDP Work Team's face-to-face meeting. You raise some useful questions and points and I'll try to address each one. - You mention a "trend towards more F2F meetings," but actually the trend is away from F2F if you look at the GNSO's practice in the last several years. I have only received one request for an ICANN-supported, in-person meeting from a GNSO working group/committee. In previous years, the GNSO Council met in person several times to address new gTLD policy work. As part of new gTLD implementation efforts, ICANN has funded some limited working meetings this year, but these were separate from policy development and the GNSO, and were supported in response to a unique Board mandate. - Regarding the concerns the Registrars raised about this face-to-face meeting, it may be helpful to keep in mind that: 1. This request is not related to any particular PDP. The work of the PDP Work Team is addressing the Board's GNSO Improvements Report request to revise the policy development process. 2. Although a face-to-face meeting may have been discussed by the STI, there are no other recent or pending requests that Staff is aware of for ICANN-supported policy meetings. 3. Staff would welcome input and guidance from the PPSC (in this case) and the Council on this proposed meeting. However, the decision to provide ICANN support is not a unilateral one of a work team (as suggested), but a question of travel funding for Staff to consider. In the near future, Staff will be soliciting Council input on ICANN's budget and operating plan for the next fiscal year as done in the past, but with increased emphasis on estimating specific SO funding needs such as this one earlier on in the planning cycle. We do want to encourage the Council to play a more active role in forecasting budgetary and resource requirements on an annual basis, and to help ICANN use fees wisely and maintain the appropriate budget levels. 4. ICANN agreed to provide some travel support for a limited number of PDP Work Team participants to enable significant progress to be made on developing a new policy development process. I think there is a strong case to be made that this is a unique and compelling need and that important goals can be met. Objectives and a suggested agenda have been provided for this meeting. 5. Staff does not view this meeting as a new "emphasis on face-to-face meetings," but rather a one-off event. Teleconferences, email lists and webcasts will continue to be the basis for ICANN's policy development activities. Thanks, again, for the input on this important matter. Denise Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development ________________________________ To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [council] Discussion around face 2 face meetings From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:14:38 +0100 List-id: council(a)gnso.icann.org Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ________________________________ Dear all, There currently seems to be a trend towards more and more requests being made for ICANN resources to fund F2F meetings. This trend now seems to be spilling over into work teams that would previously have probably not made them but simply endeavored to complete their work through teleconference calls and email correspondence. On a personal basis, I find this trend worrying as it places an undue financial burden on ICANN and is not, in my view, viable in the long term unless we accept that a) ICANN's budget needs to grow exponentially and without limits and b) that participation in work teams means making oneself available to travel (with the inherent tendency that follows for only those people whom either have lots of time to devote to the ICANN process will tend to participate). However, I have not before approached this topic with the Council as I did not have concrete examples to provide. But a recent example has come to light, and I have been asked by the RrSG to forward the following message to the Council. This message comes from a member of PPSC WT who has asked that it be very clearly stated that this comment is not in any way meant as a criticism of Jeff Neuman, the chair of the group, whom has done an excellent job despite some difficult working conditions. Message reads: The PPSC PDP Work Team has proposed an ICANN-funded face-to-face meeting in Washington DC next year. The RrSG objects to this proposal on the following grounds: We are concerned about the potential for precedent this move would set for future PDPs struggling to meet the challenges of participation and schedule pressure. We are concerned about an expansion of ICANN-funded travel, and the impact this will have on budgets & fees. As such, we request that this (and any future) proposed meetings that call for ICANN funding be subject to a full vote of the Council, and are not decided unilaterally at the working-group level. It is difficult to commit support, in advance, for any meeting that does not have a detailed & defined agenda. And finally, we believe that an emphasis on face-to-face meetings (as opposed to remote teleconferences / webcasts) is a retreat from ICANN's mission of global participation and inclusion of interests outside the US. Thanks, Stéphane

3 2

RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Draft request for a PDP-WT face-to-face meeting
by Mike Rodenbaugh Dec. 3, 2009

Dec. 3, 2009

For the record, I agree with both of Robin's points, and am copying Council list so the Councilors can see a couple big issues that will be inherent in every F2F meeting that is sought by any WG. I continue to disagree that Staff should assist with a F2F meeting of this PDP-WT, without GNSO Council consideration and approval of such a request, in light of all other GNSO priorities and initiatives that are ongoing. I must assume that budget for this sort of thing is not unlimited, and so should not simply be usurped because a few people think that this is a priority over all else, and have got themselves 'first in line'. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:57 PM To: Robin Gross; Marika Konings Cc: Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Draft request for a PDP-WT face-to-face meeting Thank you for this note Robin. We will discuss during the call on Thursday. Please rest assured that regardless of the outcome of the issue of 1 vs 2 or 3 reps, it is my job to ensure that all viewpoints are heard and reflected in any resulting work product. This should have nothing to do with the number of people from a particular group that attend a meeting. If I am not successful in doing my job, I expect you all to let me know. 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. From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:24 PM To: Marika Konings Cc: Gnso-ppsc-pdp(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Draft request for a PDP-WT face-to-face meeting Thanks for the draft. I have a couple concerns with it, however, before it can meet approval. I disagree with the proposition that only 1 NCSG member will be funded to participate, while 3 CSG representatives will be funded to participate at this meeting. Given the move toward parity within the GNSO, NCSG should have equal participation to CSG at this meeting. It seems hardly fair for Internet users (via ICANN) to fund 3 commercial participants while the non-commercial users are only allowed 1 representative. NCSG would settle for 2 members to participate, however (still less than CSG's 3). I also disagree with the proposition that our participants have to meet ICANN's "active participation" standard. At least within NCSG, we cannot send our member who has been most active and need to send another person in many cases. NCSG members coordinate among themselves on a position and who to send to represent us. It may not always be someone who ICANN decides is "active" enough. But it is ultimately up to the NCSG (not ICANN) as to who to send to represent noncommercial users at the meeting. Thanks, Robin On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:36 AM, Marika Konings wrote: Dear All, As discussed, please find attached the draft request for a PDP-WT face-to-face meeting for discussion and review at our next meeting, Thursday 3 December at 15.00 UTC. With best regards, Marika <Request for a PDP WT Face to Face meeting - 2 December 2009.doc> IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org

1 0

FW: [gnso-sti] FW: Re: Clearinghouse statement
by Rosette, Kristina Dec. 3, 2009

Dec. 3, 2009

All, With apologies for duplication to those who are subscribe to or read the STI list, I am forwarding a message posted on behalf of IPC leadership and the IPC STI representatives. Given the importance of this issue and the potential ramifications, I wanted to make certain you are all aware of it. K ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-sti(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@icann.org] On Behalf Of Margie Milam Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 9:57 AM To: 'GNSO STI' Subject: [gnso-sti] FW: Re: Clearinghouse statement Dear All, Please find the attached statement from the IPC. Best Regards, Margie From: Mark V. B. Partridge [mailto:mvbp@pattishall.com] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 6:48 AM To: Margie Milam Cc: mcgradyp(a)gtlaw.com Subject: Fwd: Re: Clearinghouse statement Margie, I'm not sure if this went to entire STI list. Would you please see that it does. Thanks. Mark Mark V.B. Partridge Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive - Suite 5000 - Chicago, IL 60606 T (312) 554-8000 Direct (312) 554-7922 F (312) 554-8015 mpartridge(a)pattishall.com <mailto:mpartridge@pattishall.com> www.pattishall.com <http://www.pattishall.com/> ************************************************************************ *** The preceding message and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by the attorney-client or other privilege. You may not forward this message or any attachments without the permission of the sender. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please reply to the sender that you received the message in error and then delete it. Nothing in this email message, including the typed name of the sender and/or this signature block, is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in the message. ************************************************************************ ***

2 3

Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups
by Gomes, Chuck Dec. 3, 2009

Dec. 3, 2009

I am making this motion for action in our 17 Dec 09 Council meeting. Glen - Please post this per normal practice. Thanks. Chuck Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups Motion by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by: Whereas the Board Governance Committee Report on GNSO Improvements (BGC Report) tasked ICANN staff with developing, within six months, in consultation with the GNSO Council, a "tool kit" of basic services that would be made available to all constituencies. (See Report of the Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group on GNSO Improvements, 3 February 2008 located at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-repor t-03feb08.pdf, p. 46.); Whereas the ICANN Board approved the BGC GNSO Improvement Recommendations on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182 <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182> ); Whereas in January 2009 the GNSO Council formed the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) to develop recommendations to implement operational changes contained in the BGC Report; Whereas the OSC established three Work Teams, including the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team, to take on the work of each of the three operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations; Whereas the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team developed and approved Tool Kit Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups on 25 October 2009 and sent them to the OSC for review; Whereas the OSC accepted the Work Team's recommendations; Whereas on 5 Nov 09 the document was distributed to the Council list and Councilors were asked to forward the recommendations to their respective groups for review and comment ASAP with the tentative goal of Council action in our December meeting; RESOLVED, the Council accepts the recommendations (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/tool-kit-services-recommendations-for-gnso -05nov09-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/tool-kit-services-recommendations-for-gnso -05nov09-en.pdf> ) and directs Staff to share the recommendations with the Board and post the document on the GNSO web page at http://gnso.icann.org/ <http://gnso.icann.org/> .

3 4

ICANN Board meeting agenda - 9 Dec 2009
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 3, 2009

Dec. 3, 2009

Hello All, From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/agenda-09dec09.htm The Board meeting agenda is: Consent Agenda ============== 1. Consent Agenda Resolution: a. Approval of Lease for Washington D.C. Office Space b. Payment of Jones Day Invoices c. Amendment for Partial Bulk Transfer in dot-COM and dot-NET d. Thank You to Rajasekhar Ramaraj Main Board Meeting =================== 2. President's Report 3. Affirmation of Commitment Reviews 4. Plan for Expressions of Interest 5. Updated Project Plan on New gTLDs a. Root Scaling Study Update b. Registry/Registrar Separation 6. New GNSO Constituency Applications 7. Update on IDN FastTrack 8. Update on Strategic Plan 9. Reforecast of FY11 Budget 10. Redelegation of .co 11. Any Other Business 12. Executive Session Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Public Comment Requested on Draft 2010-2013 Strategic Plan
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 2, 2009

Dec. 2, 2009

News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01dec09-en.htm ________________________________ Public Comment Requested on Draft 2010-2013 Strategic Plan 1 December 2009 As the next element of consultation on the Strategic Plan, ICANN invites comments from the community on a first draft of the plan based on material presented to the community at the Seoul meeting. In particular, we are seeking the views of the community on the following issues: 1. What should be the three to five year high level strategic objectives for each of the four areas of work? 2. What would be the specific metrics for each of the four areas of work? The comment period will close on 21 January 2010. The draft plan will be revised based on the comments received and the responses to the community survey<http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=j4N7UAoVMQ_2bixC2FwvP6oQ_3d_3d> posted earlier this month. A final version of the Strategic Plan will be submitted to the Board for approval at their February meeting. Please go to http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#strat-plan… in order to participate and share your comments on the draft Strategic Plan for 2010-2013. Links: Draft Strategic Plan 2010-2013<http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-2010-2013-01dec09-en.…> [PDF, 209K] ________________________________ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

AW: [council] Decision on whether to initiate a PDP regarding vertical integration of registries & registrars
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 2, 2009

Dec. 2, 2009

Following our discussion within the constituency we prefer preparing the PDP initiation diligently. Regarding the time available at this season we suggest to finally take a decision at the councils meeting end of January. Regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 27. November 2009 16:16 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE: [council] Decision on whether to initiate a PDP regarding vertical integration of registries & registrars Thanks Wolf. You have a nice weekend as well. I appreciate your diligence in always following up on requests for feedback. Chuck _____ From: KnobenW(a)telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 3:34 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Decision on whether to initiate a PDP regarding vertical integration of registries & registrars Chuck, I'll come back with an answer by Wednesday next week since my colleagues from the ISPCP constituenc are still in consultation about. But my personal feeling is that we need some time to discuss the item carefully rather than to decide a PDP initiation in a hurry. Have a nice weekend Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. November 2009 22:20 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] Decision on whether to initiate a PDP regarding vertical integration of registries & registrars In anticipation of receiving the Vertical Separation of Registries and Registrars Issues Report the end of next week (4 Dec), the current Bylaws require "the Council shall meet within fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of such Report to vote on whether to initiate the PDP." That means we need a motion (or motions) for our next meeting on 17 Dec. It seems to me that for an issue like this that will be somewhat complicated, making a decision on initiating a PDP within as little as 13 days of receiving the issues report may be challenging, and even more so this time of year. Also, we will not have finished our project prioritization exercise by then. On the other hand, to the extent that a PDP could possibly result in delays of the introduction of new gTLDs, I think we don't want to contribute to any more delays if avoidable. So I am requesting Councilors to express your opinions in this regard. Should we consider deferring the PDP decision until January or should we vote on whether to initiate a PDP in our 17 Dec meeting? Note that we have two meetings in January on the 7th and the 28th. Your thoughts are requested. Chuck

1 0

RE: AW: [council] Decision on whether to initiate a PDP regarding vertical integration of registries & registrars
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 1, 2009

Dec. 1, 2009

> we need some time to discuss the item carefully rather > than to decide a PDP initiation in a hurry. I agree with needing time to discuss after we get the issues report. Even if we voted 17 Dec what can really be done anyway between then and 7 Jan given the holidays? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: AW: [council] Decision on whether to initiate a PDP regarding vertical integration of registries & registrars From: <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> Date: Fri, November 27, 2009 2:34 am To: <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Chuck, I'll come back with an answer by Wednesday next week since my colleagues from the ISPCP constituenc are still in consultation about. But my personal feeling is that we need some time to discuss the item carefully rather than to decide a PDP initiation in a hurry. Have a nice weekend Wolf-Ulrich Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. November 2009 22:20 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] Decision on whether to initiate a PDP regarding vertical integration of registries & registrars In anticipation of receiving the Vertical Separation of Registries and Registrars Issues Report the end of next week (4 Dec), the current Bylaws require "the Council shall meet within fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of such Report to vote on whether to initiate the PDP." That means we need a motion (or motions) for our next meeting on 17 Dec. It seems to me that for an issue like this that will be somewhat complicated, making a decision on initiating a PDP within as little as 13 days of receiving the issues report may be challenging, and even more so this time of year. Also, we will not have finished our project prioritization exercise by then. On the other hand, to the extent that a PDP could possibly result in delays of the introduction of new gTLDs, I think we don't want to contribute to any more delays if avoidable. So I am requesting Councilors to express your opinions in this regard. Should we consider deferring the PDP decision until January or should we vote on whether to initiate a PDP in our 17 Dec meeting? Note that we have two meetings in January on the 7th and the 28th. Your thoughts are requested. Chuck

2 1