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@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@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@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@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@ipjustice.org