Travel Planning to Los Angeles
Hello Everyone: After reviewing the chat and content of our call Tuesday, 21 August, it has been decided to proceed with the meeting in Los Angeles as proposed. (See bullet three, below.) 1. Members who are attending in person already should have travel arrangements in process. 2. Members unable to attend should have designated their alternates for attendance, who should be in contact with ICANN regarding travel arrangements. (See Alternate Assignment form, https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScuCvS7vKS4MuaXwJmDcUHtOTskg6t5qrSE...) Remote participation is available for members that prefer to participate remotely instead of designating an alternate. 3. Members who are attending but will miss a portion of the meeting should designate an alternate who will replace that member when they are gone from the meeting for a significant period. That alternate will be permitted to sit in on the entire three-day meeting but participate only when the member is absent from the meeting. In these cases, alternates will not be provided travel funding. Travel funding is allocated based on the number of members in each group. Remote participation will also be available for those members that prefer to participate remotely instead of designating an alternate. If any of the above is not clear or if you have questions, you can contact me, Rafik or the ICANN Support Team. Through this email, I am asking Terri Agnew to follow up with you to ensure all necessary travel is planned and funded. I am looking forward to the meeting and commit to work with the support staff to make the effort on your part worth your while. Best regards, Kurt
Hello all, To get travel ready, those members who cannot attend in person and will assign an alternate for travel or a portion of the meeting, please complete the Alternate Assignment form (see below - point 2) by Tuesday, 28 August 2018. Members and Liaisons; ICANN Constituency Travel has sent out emails with your travel information. Please submit air or travel by Friday, 24 August 2018. If you have not received this email, let us know right away at gnso-secs@icann.org Thank you. Kind regards, Terri -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 11:36 AM To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Travel Planning to Los Angeles Hello Everyone: After reviewing the chat and content of our call Tuesday, 21 August, it has been decided to proceed with the meeting in Los Angeles as proposed. (See bullet three, below.) 1. Members who are attending in person already should have travel arrangements in process. 2. Members unable to attend should have designated their alternates for attendance, who should be in contact with ICANN regarding travel arrangements. (See Alternate Assignment form, https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScuCvS7vKS4MuaXwJmDcUHtOTskg6t5qrSE...) Remote participation is available for members that prefer to participate remotely instead of designating an alternate. 3. Members who are attending but will miss a portion of the meeting should designate an alternate who will replace that member when they are gone from the meeting for a significant period. That alternate will be permitted to sit in on the entire three-day meeting but participate only when the member is absent from the meeting. In these cases, alternates will not be provided travel funding. Travel funding is allocated based on the number of members in each group. Remote participation will also be available for those members that prefer to participate remotely instead of designating an alternate. If any of the above is not clear or if you have questions, you can contact me, Rafik or the ICANN Support Team. Through this email, I am asking Terri Agnew to follow up with you to ensure all necessary travel is planned and funded. I am looking forward to the meeting and commit to work with the support staff to make the effort on your part worth your while. Best regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Dear Kurt We have been raising objections about alternates being able to be present at the meeting when they do not replace a member. We have provided reasons which I reiterate here: 1. Principle: the EPDP membership structure was designed carefully to reach the right balance and representation. Presence of alternates even if they do not speak during the meeting meddles with the balance. Here are my reasons: Alternates can discuss face to face outside of the meeting about the issues, discuss with their counterparts and relay their views much easier so that they can be channeled through the meeting. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it should not be facilitated either. They can do it on chat, but face to face is more effective. 2. Setting precedent: we agreed on the balance of representation and the role of members and alternates at GNSO. We are opening the door to meddling in this role. 3. Unclear intention: What is the intention here exactly? Why are we accommodating this request? I would like to hear why this request was made initially. If the presence of alternates in the room makes no difference, then they can just sit behind their computer and discuss with their colleagues through other means. I am not implying at all that there is a bad intention. But the intention is not clear. Is it to easily replace a member if they are tired in the middle of the meeting? I don't think this is a football match. 4. Imbalance of power: Bringing the alternates, in my opinion, adds to the strength of a group and makes it easier for them to deliberate spontaneously. Some groups have the funds to bring in their alternates, some don't. So there will be power imbalance. You could argue that I can just bring in NCSG alternates too. That is not possible. Because they live around the world and we don't have funding to bring them. Also it's against the principle I mentioned above. As a group that has had to fight for being given equal representation in this EPDP, I find it puzzling that accommodating such requests that can bring imbalance of representation is being done so easily. Best Farzaneh On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:36 PM Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hello Everyone:
After reviewing the chat and content of our call Tuesday, 21 August, it has been decided to proceed with the meeting in Los Angeles as proposed. (See bullet three, below.)
1. Members who are attending in person already should have travel arrangements in process.
2. Members unable to attend should have designated their alternates for attendance, who should be in contact with ICANN regarding travel arrangements. (See Alternate Assignment form, https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScuCvS7vKS4MuaXwJmDcUHtOTskg6t5qrSE...) Remote participation is available for members that prefer to participate remotely instead of designating an alternate.
3. Members who are attending but will miss a portion of the meeting should designate an alternate who will replace that member when they are gone from the meeting for a significant period. That alternate will be permitted to sit in on the entire three-day meeting but participate only when the member is absent from the meeting. In these cases, alternates will not be provided travel funding. Travel funding is allocated based on the number of members in each group.
Remote participation will also be available for those members that prefer to participate remotely instead of designating an alternate.
If any of the above is not clear or if you have questions, you can contact me, Rafik or the ICANN Support Team.
Through this email, I am asking Terri Agnew to follow up with you to ensure all necessary travel is planned and funded.
I am looking forward to the meeting and commit to work with the support staff to make the effort on your part worth your while.
Best regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
+1 Farzaneh. This is not the time to re-write the rules and re-define what is the role of the alternate. The distinction between a member and an alternate is important. —Ayden
On 23 Aug 2018, at 19:05, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Kurt
We have been raising objections about alternates being able to be present at the meeting when they do not replace a member.
We have provided reasons which I reiterate here:
1. Principle: the EPDP membership structure was designed carefully to reach the right balance and representation. Presence of alternates even if they do not speak during the meeting meddles with the balance. Here are my reasons: Alternates can discuss face to face outside of the meeting about the issues, discuss with their counterparts and relay their views much easier so that they can be channeled through the meeting. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it should not be facilitated either. They can do it on chat, but face to face is more effective.
2. Setting precedent: we agreed on the balance of representation and the role of members and alternates at GNSO. We are opening the door to meddling in this role.
3. Unclear intention: What is the intention here exactly? Why are we accommodating this request? I would like to hear why this request was made initially. If the presence of alternates in the room makes no difference, then they can just sit behind their computer and discuss with their colleagues through other means. I am not implying at all that there is a bad intention. But the intention is not clear. Is it to easily replace a member if they are tired in the middle of the meeting? I don't think this is a football match.
4. Imbalance of power: Bringing the alternates, in my opinion, adds to the strength of a group and makes it easier for them to deliberate spontaneously. Some groups have the funds to bring in their alternates, some don't. So there will be power imbalance. You could argue that I can just bring in NCSG alternates too. That is not possible. Because they live around the world and we don't have funding to bring them. Also it's against the principle I mentioned above.
As a group that has had to fight for being given equal representation in this EPDP, I find it puzzling that accommodating such requests that can bring imbalance of representation is being done so easily.
Best
Farzaneh
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:36 PM Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hello Everyone:
After reviewing the chat and content of our call Tuesday, 21 August, it has been decided to proceed with the meeting in Los Angeles as proposed. (See bullet three, below.)
1. Members who are attending in person already should have travel arrangements in process.
2. Members unable to attend should have designated their alternates for attendance, who should be in contact with ICANN regarding travel arrangements. (See Alternate Assignment form, https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScuCvS7vKS4MuaXwJmDcUHtOTskg6t5qrSE...) Remote participation is available for members that prefer to participate remotely instead of designating an alternate.
3. Members who are attending but will miss a portion of the meeting should designate an alternate who will replace that member when they are gone from the meeting for a significant period. That alternate will be permitted to sit in on the entire three-day meeting but participate only when the member is absent from the meeting. In these cases, alternates will not be provided travel funding. Travel funding is allocated based on the number of members in each group.
Remote participation will also be available for those members that prefer to participate remotely instead of designating an alternate.
If any of the above is not clear or if you have questions, you can contact me, Rafik or the ICANN Support Team.
Through this email, I am asking Terri Agnew to follow up with you to ensure all necessary travel is planned and funded.
I am looking forward to the meeting and commit to work with the support staff to make the effort on your part worth your while.
Best regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Dear EPDP colleagues, The United States is concerned that there appears to be a concerted attempt to block the ability of EPDP members and alternates to communicate and confer with each other in real time whether during the regular teleconferences or face to face meetings. To be clear, no one has requested an expansion of the alternates’ role or that alternates speak in addition to members during formal EPDP meetings. No one has requested additional travel support for alternates. Rather, we request that the procedures and protocols for teleconferences and face to face meetings support the ability of members and alternates to confer in real time as they carry out the important and time-sensitive work of the EPDP. The EPDP Charter clearly articulates that the members are not to represent individual views or positions and thus requires the ability to confer. Nothing in the Charter bars alternates from real time access to meetings or communicating with their primary member colleagues so long as they do not seek to step into to the primary member’s role by addressing remarks to the entire group. While we fully appreciate and are happy to comply with the EPDP Charter that has limited participation to prescribed numbers, we cannot support overt attempts to stymie openness and transparency as well as the ability of members to confer with colleagues to ensure we are representing the views/formal positions of our SG/C or SO/AC. In the interest of transparency and to promote the efficient work of the EPDP, we urge the EPDP leadership to take steps to ensure that alternates and members are able to attend face to face meetings and teleconferences. Thanks and I hope we can reach agreement to ensure the successful engagement and ultimate conclusion of the EPDP. ________________________________ From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 4:59 AM To: farzaneh badii Cc: Mark Svancarek \ via Gnso-epdp-team Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Travel Planning to Los Angeles +1 Farzaneh. This is not the time to re-write the rules and re-define what is the role of the alternate. The distinction between a member and an alternate is important. —Ayden On 23 Aug 2018, at 19:05, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Kurt We have been raising objections about alternates being able to be present at the meeting when they do not replace a member. We have provided reasons which I reiterate here: 1. Principle: the EPDP membership structure was designed carefully to reach the right balance and representation. Presence of alternates even if they do not speak during the meeting meddles with the balance. Here are my reasons: Alternates can discuss face to face outside of the meeting about the issues, discuss with their counterparts and relay their views much easier so that they can be channeled through the meeting. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it should not be facilitated either. They can do it on chat, but face to face is more effective. 2. Setting precedent: we agreed on the balance of representation and the role of members and alternates at GNSO. We are opening the door to meddling in this role. 3. Unclear intention: What is the intention here exactly? Why are we accommodating this request? I would like to hear why this request was made initially. If the presence of alternates in the room makes no difference, then they can just sit behind their computer and discuss with their colleagues through other means. I am not implying at all that there is a bad intention. But the intention is not clear. Is it to easily replace a member if they are tired in the middle of the meeting? I don't think this is a football match. 4. Imbalance of power: Bringing the alternates, in my opinion, adds to the strength of a group and makes it easier for them to deliberate spontaneously. Some groups have the funds to bring in their alternates, some don't. So there will be power imbalance. You could argue that I can just bring in NCSG alternates too. That is not possible. Because they live around the world and we don't have funding to bring them. Also it's against the principle I mentioned above. As a group that has had to fight for being given equal representation in this EPDP, I find it puzzling that accommodating such requests that can bring imbalance of representation is being done so easily. Best Farzaneh On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:36 PM Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: Hello Everyone: After reviewing the chat and content of our call Tuesday, 21 August, it has been decided to proceed with the meeting in Los Angeles as proposed. (See bullet three, below.) 1. Members who are attending in person already should have travel arrangements in process. 2. Members unable to attend should have designated their alternates for attendance, who should be in contact with ICANN regarding travel arrangements. (See Alternate Assignment form, https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScuCvS7vKS4MuaXwJmDcUHtOTskg6t5qrSETKlCKgokRK17gA/viewform<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fforms%2Fd%2Fe%2F1FAIpQLScuCvS7vKS4MuaXwJmDcUHtOTskg6t5qrSETKlCKgokRK17gA%2Fviewform&data=02%7C01%7CAHeineman%40ntia.doc.gov%7C237bd82fdbc5484ccfc508d609a035e1%7Cd6cff1bd67dd4ce8945dd07dc775672f%7C0%7C0%7C636706981036977400&sdata=6kXW%2FRv1tFOwuvdOkMYcfVkm3NXgje5p19LfVMJECws%3D&reserved=0>) Remote participation is available for members that prefer to participate remotely instead of designating an alternate. 3. Members who are attending but will miss a portion of the meeting should designate an alternate who will replace that member when they are gone from the meeting for a significant period. That alternate will be permitted to sit in on the entire three-day meeting but participate only when the member is absent from the meeting. In these cases, alternates will not be provided travel funding. Travel funding is allocated based on the number of members in each group. Remote participation will also be available for those members that prefer to participate remotely instead of designating an alternate. If any of the above is not clear or if you have questions, you can contact me, Rafik or the ICANN Support Team. Through this email, I am asking Terri Agnew to follow up with you to ensure all necessary travel is planned and funded. I am looking forward to the meeting and commit to work with the support staff to make the effort on your part worth your while. Best regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-epdp-team&data=02%7C01%7CAHeineman%40ntia.doc.gov%7C237bd82fdbc5484ccfc508d609a035e1%7Cd6cff1bd67dd4ce8945dd07dc775672f%7C0%7C0%7C636706981036987404&sdata=ZJ0J%2BktygUQOwp0uPh3dQlT7m0mSwjIwrKHrf7xRO4M%3D&reserved=0>
Ashley I don't think we need to make a big deal of this. I am fine with letting alternates come, but please let's stick to the rules in the charter about each unit's representation. That's what my colleagues seem to be concerned about, and with good cause. So, e.g., if GAC has 3 or 4 people come, _only_ two of them can participate at a time, and that includes those on the telephone participating remotely. Same deal on our side. Confer all you like in the hallways, chat apps, coffee breaks and Facetime but don't try to expand the number of full participants assigned to your AC/SG. That's a basic matter of fairness and of adherence to the group's charter. I really don't want to have to monitor that during the meeting, but I am telling everyone now I will be watching that like a hawk, and I expect the ePDP chair and ICANN staff to be doing so, also. Dr. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy<http://spp.gatech.edu/> Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org/ From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heineman, Ashley Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 10:32 AM To: Farzaneh Badiei <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Cc: Mark Svancarek \ via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Travel Planning to Los Angeles Dear EPDP colleagues, The United States is concerned that there appears to be a concerted attempt to block the ability of EPDP members and alternates to communicate and confer with each other in real time whether during the regular teleconferences or face to face meetings. To be clear, no one has requested an expansion of the alternates' role or that alternates speak in addition to members during formal EPDP meetings. No one has requested additional travel support for alternates. Rather, we request that the procedures and protocols for teleconferences and face to face meetings support the ability of members and alternates to confer in real time as they carry out the important and time-sensitive work of the EPDP. The EPDP Charter clearly articulates that the members are not to represent individual views or positions and thus requires the ability to confer. Nothing in the Charter bars alternates from real time access to meetings or communicating with their primary member colleagues so long as they do not seek to step into to the primary member's role by addressing remarks to the entire group. While we fully appreciate and are happy to comply with the EPDP Charter that has limited participation to prescribed numbers, we cannot support overt attempts to stymie openness and transparency as well as the ability of members to confer with colleagues to ensure we are representing the views/formal positions of our SG/C or SO/AC. In the interest of transparency and to promote the efficient work of the EPDP, we urge the EPDP leadership to take steps to ensure that alternates and members are able to attend face to face meetings and teleconferences. Thanks and I hope we can reach agreement to ensure the successful engagement and ultimate conclusion of the EPDP. ________________________________ From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 4:59 AM To: farzaneh badii Cc: Mark Svancarek \ via Gnso-epdp-team Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Travel Planning to Los Angeles +1 Farzaneh. This is not the time to re-write the rules and re-define what is the role of the alternate. The distinction between a member and an alternate is important. -Ayden On 23 Aug 2018, at 19:05, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Kurt We have been raising objections about alternates being able to be present at the meeting when they do not replace a member. We have provided reasons which I reiterate here: 1. Principle: the EPDP membership structure was designed carefully to reach the right balance and representation. Presence of alternates even if they do not speak during the meeting meddles with the balance. Here are my reasons: Alternates can discuss face to face outside of the meeting about the issues, discuss with their counterparts and relay their views much easier so that they can be channeled through the meeting. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it should not be facilitated either. They can do it on chat, but face to face is more effective. 2. Setting precedent: we agreed on the balance of representation and the role of members and alternates at GNSO. We are opening the door to meddling in this role. 3. Unclear intention: What is the intention here exactly? Why are we accommodating this request? I would like to hear why this request was made initially. If the presence of alternates in the room makes no difference, then they can just sit behind their computer and discuss with their colleagues through other means. I am not implying at all that there is a bad intention. But the intention is not clear. Is it to easily replace a member if they are tired in the middle of the meeting? I don't think this is a football match. 4. Imbalance of power: Bringing the alternates, in my opinion, adds to the strength of a group and makes it easier for them to deliberate spontaneously. Some groups have the funds to bring in their alternates, some don't. So there will be power imbalance. You could argue that I can just bring in NCSG alternates too. That is not possible. Because they live around the world and we don't have funding to bring them. Also it's against the principle I mentioned above. As a group that has had to fight for being given equal representation in this EPDP, I find it puzzling that accommodating such requests that can bring imbalance of representation is being done so easily. Best Farzaneh On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:36 PM Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: Hello Everyone: After reviewing the chat and content of our call Tuesday, 21 August, it has been decided to proceed with the meeting in Los Angeles as proposed. (See bullet three, below.) 1. Members who are attending in person already should have travel arrangements in process. 2. Members unable to attend should have designated their alternates for attendance, who should be in contact with ICANN regarding travel arrangements. (See Alternate Assignment form, https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScuCvS7vKS4MuaXwJmDcUHtOTskg6t5qrSETKlCKgokRK17gA/viewform<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fforms%2Fd%2Fe%2F1FAIpQLScuCvS7vKS4MuaXwJmDcUHtOTskg6t5qrSETKlCKgokRK17gA%2Fviewform&data=02%7C01%7CAHeineman%40ntia.doc.gov%7C237bd82fdbc5484ccfc508d609a035e1%7Cd6cff1bd67dd4ce8945dd07dc775672f%7C0%7C0%7C636706981036977400&sdata=6kXW%2FRv1tFOwuvdOkMYcfVkm3NXgje5p19LfVMJECws%3D&reserved=0>) Remote participation is available for members that prefer to participate remotely instead of designating an alternate. 3. Members who are attending but will miss a portion of the meeting should designate an alternate who will replace that member when they are gone from the meeting for a significant period. That alternate will be permitted to sit in on the entire three-day meeting but participate only when the member is absent from the meeting. In these cases, alternates will not be provided travel funding. Travel funding is allocated based on the number of members in each group. Remote participation will also be available for those members that prefer to participate remotely instead of designating an alternate. If any of the above is not clear or if you have questions, you can contact me, Rafik or the ICANN Support Team. Through this email, I am asking Terri Agnew to follow up with you to ensure all necessary travel is planned and funded. I am looking forward to the meeting and commit to work with the support staff to make the effort on your part worth your while. Best regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-epdp-team&data=02%7C01%7CAHeineman%40ntia.doc.gov%7C237bd82fdbc5484ccfc508d609a035e1%7Cd6cff1bd67dd4ce8945dd07dc775672f%7C0%7C0%7C636706981036987404&sdata=ZJ0J%2BktygUQOwp0uPh3dQlT7m0mSwjIwrKHrf7xRO4M%3D&reserved=0>
Hi, IPC supports the LA meeting plan as currently proposed by Kurt and team. It is pragmatic, strikes the right balance and supports charter language on EPDP team structure that states that Alternates may only participate if a Member is not available. The proposal does not in any way re-define the role of the alternate. In addition (like Milton it seems?) we support the ability for alternates to be in the room but not participate at the table or remotely in the Member-only AC room. (Although if I'm not mistaken the decision to not allow this for the LA meeting has already been made.) We also support all of the well made by Ashley. As we as Members are not speaking for ourselves but for our SG/C or SO/AC we must ensure we do not in any way artificially hinder the ability to coordinate or confer with our colleagues. Thanks. Alex On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:41 AM Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Ashley
I don’t think we need to make a big deal of this. I am fine with letting alternates come, but please let’s stick to the rules in the charter about each unit’s representation. That’s what my colleagues seem to be concerned about, and with good cause. So, e.g., if GAC has 3 or 4 people come, _ *only*_ two of them can participate at a time, and that includes those on the telephone participating remotely. Same deal on our side. Confer all you like in the hallways, chat apps, coffee breaks and Facetime but don’t try to expand the number of full participants assigned to your AC/SG. That’s a basic matter of fairness and of adherence to the group’s charter.
I really don’t want to have to monitor that during the meeting, but I am telling everyone now I will be watching that like a hawk, and I expect the ePDP chair and ICANN staff to be doing so, also.
Dr. Milton L Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy <http://spp.gatech.edu/>
Georgia Institute of Technology
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org/
*From:* Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Heineman, Ashley *Sent:* Friday, August 24, 2018 10:32 AM *To:* Farzaneh Badiei <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>; Ayden Férdeline < icann@ferdeline.com> *Cc:* Mark Svancarek \ via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Travel Planning to Los Angeles
Dear EPDP colleagues,
The United States is concerned that there appears to be a concerted attempt to block the ability of EPDP members and alternates to communicate and confer with each other in real time whether during the regular teleconferences or face to face meetings. To be clear, no one has requested an expansion of the alternates’ role or that alternates speak in addition to members during formal EPDP meetings. No one has requested additional travel support for alternates. Rather, we request that the procedures and protocols for teleconferences and face to face meetings support the ability of members and alternates to confer in real time as they carry out the important and time-sensitive work of the EPDP.
The EPDP Charter clearly articulates that the members are not to represent individual views or positions and thus requires the ability to confer. Nothing in the Charter bars alternates from real time access to meetings or communicating with their primary member colleagues so long as they do not seek to step into to the primary member’s role by addressing remarks to the entire group.
While we fully appreciate and are happy to comply with the EPDP Charter that has limited participation to prescribed numbers, we cannot support overt attempts to stymie openness and transparency as well as the ability of members to confer with colleagues to ensure we are representing the views/formal positions of our SG/C or SO/AC. In the interest of transparency and to promote the efficient work of the EPDP, we urge the EPDP leadership to take steps to ensure that alternates and members are able to attend face to face meetings and teleconferences.
Thanks and I hope we can reach agreement to ensure the successful engagement and ultimate conclusion of the EPDP.
------------------------------
*From:* Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> *Sent:* Friday, August 24, 2018 4:59 AM *To:* farzaneh badii *Cc:* Mark Svancarek \ via Gnso-epdp-team *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Travel Planning to Los Angeles
+1 Farzaneh.
This is not the time to re-write the rules and re-define what is the role of the alternate. The distinction between a member and an alternate is important.
—Ayden
On 23 Aug 2018, at 19:05, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Kurt
We have been raising objections about alternates being able to be present at the meeting when they do not replace a member.
We have provided reasons which I reiterate here:
1. Principle: the EPDP membership structure was designed carefully to reach the right balance and representation. Presence of alternates even if they do not speak during the meeting meddles with the balance. Here are my reasons: Alternates can discuss face to face outside of the meeting about the issues, discuss with their counterparts and relay their views much easier so that they can be channeled through the meeting. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it should not be facilitated either. They can do it on chat, but face to face is more effective.
2. Setting precedent: we agreed on the balance of representation and the role of members and alternates at GNSO. We are opening the door to meddling in this role.
3. Unclear intention: What is the intention here exactly? Why are we accommodating this request? I would like to hear why this request was made initially. If the presence of alternates in the room makes no difference, then they can just sit behind their computer and discuss with their colleagues through other means. I am not implying at all that there is a bad intention. But the intention is not clear. Is it to easily replace a member if they are tired in the middle of the meeting? I don't think this is a football match.
4. Imbalance of power: Bringing the alternates, in my opinion, adds to the strength of a group and makes it easier for them to deliberate spontaneously. Some groups have the funds to bring in their alternates, some don't. So there will be power imbalance. You could argue that I can just bring in NCSG alternates too. That is not possible. Because they live around the world and we don't have funding to bring them. Also it's against the principle I mentioned above.
As a group that has had to fight for being given equal representation in this EPDP, I find it puzzling that accommodating such requests that can bring imbalance of representation is being done so easily.
Best
Farzaneh
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:36 PM Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hello Everyone:
After reviewing the chat and content of our call Tuesday, 21 August, it has been decided to proceed with the meeting in Los Angeles as proposed. (See bullet three, below.)
1. Members who are attending in person already should have travel arrangements in process.
2. Members unable to attend should have designated their alternates for attendance, who should be in contact with ICANN regarding travel arrangements. (See Alternate Assignment form, https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScuCvS7vKS4MuaXwJmDcUHtOTskg6t5qrSE... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google...>) Remote participation is available for members that prefer to participate remotely instead of designating an alternate.
3. Members who are attending but will miss a portion of the meeting should designate an alternate who will replace that member when they are gone from the meeting for a significant period. That alternate will be permitted to sit in on the entire three-day meeting but participate only when the member is absent from the meeting. In these cases, alternates will not be provided travel funding. Travel funding is allocated based on the number of members in each group.
Remote participation will also be available for those members that prefer to participate remotely instead of designating an alternate.
If any of the above is not clear or if you have questions, you can contact me, Rafik or the ICANN Support Team.
Through this email, I am asking Terri Agnew to follow up with you to ensure all necessary travel is planned and funded.
I am looking forward to the meeting and commit to work with the support staff to make the effort on your part worth your while.
Best regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
-- ___________ *Alex Deacon* Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com +1.415.488.6009
participants (7)
-
Alex Deacon -
Ayden Férdeline -
farzaneh badii -
Heineman, Ashley -
Kurt Pritz -
Mueller, Milton L -
Terri Agnew