AW: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
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@icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org
] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:22 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@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@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@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@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@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@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>
Thanks Wolf. I respectfully disagree that this 'framing' work is a higher priority that ongoing policy development work, especially including the RAP-WG and the RAA work which have a lot of volunteers and would surely benefit from F2F interaction. We have already made massive changes to the Bylaws, and in my opinion those can be allowed to play out awhile, under the current PDP rules (as unenforced as they typically are), as that experience may well lead to better PDP rulemaking in the fairly near future, once existing WTs are allowed priority to finish their work, with all of the limited resources available to the entire GNSO policy process. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com 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@icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org
] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:22 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@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@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@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@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@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@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>
I would recommend against any decision to hold a F2F meeting unless Council approves it. Right now this is a discussion that is going on across several lists, and not all members of Council are on those lists (I only got to read Liz' email because Wolf sent his reply to it to the Council list). It is hard to follow. But it does seem clear from various bits of conversation that I've been able to read between Avri, Jeff, Mike and others, that there are issues. It would be good for the whole Council to hear those issues before a decision is taken. Wolf, just a FYI: you do not need the Chair or anyone else's permission to submit a motion to the Council list. However, that motion must be seconded and be submitted within the required time limit to feature in the following Council meeting. Thanks, Stéphane Le 10 déc. 2009 à 11:20, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
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@icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org
] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:22 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@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@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@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@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@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@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>
I apologise for any confusion that has been created. I wanted to avoid that by waiting to forward the request from the WT until some apparent controversy was cleared. Unfortunately, the Council list was added as a cc in one of the email messages. I became aware of the controversy shortly after I received the WT request and asked that an effort to resolve the controversy happen before I submit the request to the Council. I suggest that Councilors wait for the final request from the WT before getting too far into the discussion. I assure you that we will discuss it under AOB on 17 Dec. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:21 PM To: <KnobenW@telekom.de> Cc: lizawilliams@mac.com; icann@rodenbaugh.com; gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] AW: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
I would recommend against any decision to hold a F2F meeting unless Council approves it.
Right now this is a discussion that is going on across several lists, and not all members of Council are on those lists (I only got to read Liz' email because Wolf sent his reply to it to the Council list). It is hard to follow. But it does seem clear from various bits of conversation that I've been able to read between Avri, Jeff, Mike and others, that there are issues. It would be good for the whole Council to hear those issues before a decision is taken.
Wolf, just a FYI: you do not need the Chair or anyone else's permission to submit a motion to the Council list. However, that motion must be seconded and be submitted within the required time limit to feature in the following Council meeting.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 10 déc. 2009 à 11:20, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
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@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org ] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:22 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@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@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@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@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@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_comm
it
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@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>
Sounds good. Thanks Chuck. Stéphane Le 10 déc. 2009 à 19:33, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
I apologise for any confusion that has been created. I wanted to avoid that by waiting to forward the request from the WT until some apparent controversy was cleared. Unfortunately, the Council list was added as a cc in one of the email messages.
I became aware of the controversy shortly after I received the WT request and asked that an effort to resolve the controversy happen before I submit the request to the Council. I suggest that Councilors wait for the final request from the WT before getting too far into the discussion. I assure you that we will discuss it under AOB on 17 Dec.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:21 PM To: <KnobenW@telekom.de> Cc: lizawilliams@mac.com; icann@rodenbaugh.com; gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] AW: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
I would recommend against any decision to hold a F2F meeting unless Council approves it.
Right now this is a discussion that is going on across several lists, and not all members of Council are on those lists (I only got to read Liz' email because Wolf sent his reply to it to the Council list). It is hard to follow. But it does seem clear from various bits of conversation that I've been able to read between Avri, Jeff, Mike and others, that there are issues. It would be good for the whole Council to hear those issues before a decision is taken.
Wolf, just a FYI: you do not need the Chair or anyone else's permission to submit a motion to the Council list. However, that motion must be seconded and be submitted within the required time limit to feature in the following Council meeting.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 10 déc. 2009 à 11:20, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
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@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org ] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:22 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@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@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@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@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@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_comm
it
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@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>
participants (4)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Stéphane Van Gelder