<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Message forwarded on behalf of Jeff Neuman.<div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Stéphane<br>
<div><br><div>Début du message réexpédié :</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>De : </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;">"Neuman, Jeff" <<a href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us">Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us</a>><br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>Date : </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;">11 décembre 2009 18:04:12 HNEC<br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>À : </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;">Stéphane Van Gelder <<a href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com">stephane.vangelder@indom.com</a>>, "GNSO Council" <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>Cc : </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;">"<a href="mailto:Gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org">Gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org">gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org</a>><br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>Objet : </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;"><b>RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting</b><br></span></div><br><div>Thanks Stephane. As chair of both the PPSC and the PDP WT, I am partly to blame for the dysfunctional nature of the PPSC as a whole. However, there has not been a need to date to recall the PPSC since there has not been an occasion to do so. The PPSC is supposed to review the work of the PDP WT as set forth in the PPSC charter. Requests for Face to Face meetings are not in the charter for the PPSC to approve. This is a first of its kind. Perhaps the PPSC Charter needs to be amended to include that, but I will leave it to the Council. <br><br>In other words, there is nothing in the PPSC charter that requires that it reviews all requests for meetings by the PDP WT (or even the WG WT). In fact, it was thought that the two work teams would operate independently and once done with its work (or if unable to complete its work), it would reconvene the PPSC as a whole to review.<br><br>So there are a couple of things the Council needs to review. But despite assertions by Mike that the PPSC was not consulted or did not approve, there is nothing in the charter documents that state that they have to be. Again, that may be something you want to change, but I ask that you not hold this up procedurally because we (including the Council) did not foresee this situation.<br><br>Please forward to the Council.<br><br>Thanks again.<br><br>Jeffrey J. Neuman <br>Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy<br><br><br>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.<br><br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] <br>Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 11:57 AM<br>To: GNSO Council<br>Cc: Neuman, Jeff; <a href="mailto:Gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org">Gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org</a><br>Subject: Re: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting<br><br>Considering the timing issues highlighted by Jeff in his request, I think Council should make an exception and discuss it at the next meeting.<br><br>We should also be mindful of the precedent any decision the Council takes on this (whether for or against) will set.<br><br>I am worried about the risk of generating multiple requests for F2F meetings from groups if we come out in favor of this request.<br><br>I am also worried about the apparent dysfunctional nature of the PPSC that is being described here. If it is true that the PPSC has spent its last 3 teleconferences discussing its need for a F2F meeting, then this is a clear example of the system treading on its own head. If this really is the case, and I've also seen Jeff lament the lack of participation from his group (and once again, all credit to Jeff for his job as chair), then I think Council needs to call the PPSC to account before even considering any F2F meeting requests from one of the PPSC subgroups.<br><br>It may be that the PPSC needs Council's help or guidance in becoming a functional group again. And that may be the first order of business for us in any PPSC discussion.<br><br>Thanks,<br><br>Stéphane<br><br>Le 11 déc. 2009 à 17:38, Tim Ruiz a écrit :<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Chuck,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I think Mike's point about the PDP-WT's request first being evaluated by<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the PPSC is correct. The PDP-WT was formed by the PPSC, not the Council.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">If the PPSC has not been consulted then I agree that it should be<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">consulted before the Council take any action on this. The timing of the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">request in relation to the actual F2F should not be used as an excuse to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">try to hurry this along. If approved, the WT can meet in February if<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">January doesn't work out.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The PDP-WT has had considerable time to make the request considering<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">when it first came up (before Seoul). It appears to me the last three or<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">so conference calls have focused on it. In fact, if they'd spent their<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">time actually dealing with charter issues instead of debating the F2F<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">issue there may not be a need for a F2F.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">As you said yourself, "already budgeted GNSO Improvement funds used for<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">this request would not be available for funding of other such requests<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">in the future or for other GNSO improvement implementation actions in<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">this fiscal year." And, "there are no provisions in any of the documents<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">that govern Council operation that provide procedures for Council action<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">on issues like this." So I don't think it is wise for Council to rush to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">a vote on this.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Tim<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">-------- Original Message --------<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Meeting<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">From: "Gomes, Chuck" <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Date: Fri, December 11, 2009 9:40 am<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To: <<a href="mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com">icann@rodenbaugh.com</a>>, <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Cc: "Neuman, Jeff" <<a href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us">Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us</a>>, <<a href="mailto:gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org">gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org</a>>,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">"Zahid Jamil" <<a href="mailto:zahid@jamilandjamil.com">zahid@jamilandjamil.com</a>><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Please note my responses below Mike. Please understand that my comments<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">should not be interpreted to mean that I support or oppose the request. <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">That is a decision for the whole Council to make and the reason it is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">being added to the agenda is so that the Council can consider the pros<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and cons. I plan to participate in that discussion in our meeting and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">will voice my personal opinions and those of the RySG in that regard<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">then. <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Chuck<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com] <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:29 AM<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To: Gomes, Chuck; <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'; <a href="mailto:gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org">gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Meeting<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The BC will exercise its right to push any vote on this issue to the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">next meeting in Jaunuary, as we have not begun to discuss the issue and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">therefore have not come to a consensus position. The issue certainly<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">does not warrant emergency consideration in the next 7 days,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">particularly given all of the other issues we are considering these<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">days.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">[Gomes, Chuck] To what "right" are you referring? It is correct that we<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">have had a consistent practice of honoring a request by any constituency<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">if they needed more time to consider an issue. I support that practice<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">if such a request is coming from a Stakeholder Group and I think even if<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">it comes from a constituency within a SG, so I personally would like to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">request from you Mike and Zahid as Councilors from the BC, that you<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">would both confirm that the BC supports your request for delay. It is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">my understanding that the BC has an Executive Committee, so if it is not<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">possible to confirm this with the full BC membership, I am sure that<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">your executive committee could act on my request between now and 17<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">December. It has also been a practice of the Council to consider<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">exceptions to procedures and practices in cases where time sensitivity<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">is a factor. In our meeting on Thursday we will debate whether an<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">exception is warranted in this case as well as whether the work of this<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">WT is a high priority. Please note Mike that a request to delay a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">decision on this means that a F2F meeting, if supported, could likely<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">not happen in January as proposed by the WT and that a delay until<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">February could possibly reduce the progress made on the PDP work before<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the Nairobi meeting. Finally, considering the fact that you are a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">member of the PDP WT on behalf of the BC, am I correct in assuming that<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">you have kept the BC membership informed of the issues the WT has<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">considered including the possibility of a F2F meeting on an ongoing<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">basis? If so, am I correct in assuming that you have already obtained<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">feedback from BC members on this issue? It seems to me that the BC has<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">had considerable time to discuss this issue, so to invoke a Council<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">practice may not be well justified in your case.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Also, the PDP-WT should not be making requests of Council, especially<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">requests that do not have consensus even of the WT. The PPSC should be<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">evaluating this request now, and should make any recommendation to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Council, if any. This was the process that was agrees when we formed<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the PPSC and the WTs, and there is no justification to ignore it now,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">simply because a WT Chair, some of its members, and a few ICANN Staff<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">apparently think this is an emergency to schedule a F2F meeting.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">[Gomes, Chuck] I understand that you personally oppose this request but<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I encourage you not to use process and procedural arguments to advance<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">your personal agenda. If this is truly a BC issue, fine, but I again I<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">ask you and Zahid to please confirm that the BC membership and/or<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">executive committee supports your request for a delay. <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">If Council is going to act on this request, it must be in the context of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">our overall prioritization work, and not on an 'emergency' basis as<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">appears to be requested.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">[Gomes, Chuck] No one to my knowledge has called this an emergency but<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">there are clearly those who believe it is a higher priority than you do.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The goal in our upcoming meeting is to get a sense of where the full<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Council is on this. And I look forward to a lively discussion on the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">pros and cons. <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Mike Rodenbaugh<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">RODENBAUGH LAW<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">548 Market Street<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">San Francisco, CA 94104<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">(415) 738-8087<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://rodenbaugh.com">http://rodenbaugh.com</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">From: <a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 6:02 AM<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To: <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Cc: Neuman, Jeff; <a href="mailto:gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org">gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Subject: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Importance: High<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Here is a request from Jeff Neuman, chair of the PDP WT and chair of the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">PPSC, for a face-to-face (F2F) WT meeting including ICANN travel funding<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">support. Please ignore a previous version of Jeff's message distributed<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">on the Council list because it was sent to the Council list prematurely.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Please note that a detailed request is provided in the attached file. <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">In preparation for our Council meeting on 17 December, please review<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Jeff's message below and the attached file for discussion and possible<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">action by the Council in that meeting. And please forward this message<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">with the attachment to your respective groups immediately so that they<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">can do the same and provide Councilors input before 17 December and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">thereby provide you any direction they have on this issue.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Note that this request was received after the required deadline in the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Council Operation Procedures so we will have to decide whether to make<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">an exception to the Procedures before taking any action. The reason for<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">considering this exception is because the request is for a F2F meeting<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">in January and to delay a decision until our 7 January meeting would be<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">too late to allow adequate time for travel plans and other arrangements.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Also note that there are no provisions in any of the documents that<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">govern Council operation that provide procedures for Council action on<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">issues like this; we quite possibly will need to consider that topic<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">sometime in the future. At present though, I believe it is important<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">for the Council to be involved in this decision because already budgeted<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">GNSO Improvement funds used for this request would not be available for<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">funding of other such requests in the future or for other GNSO<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">improvement implementation actions in this fiscal year. Staff will<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">provide more details on funds available.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Jeff Neuman has been invited to participate in the 17 December Council<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">meeting so he can be available to answer questions.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">In the meantime, I encourage discussion on the Council list.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Chuck<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:47 PM<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To: Gomes, Chuck<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; <a href="mailto:gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org">gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org</a>; <a href="mailto:gnso-ppsc@icann.org">gnso-ppsc@icann.org</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Subject: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Chuck,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Please find enclosed a request by the PDP Work Team for a face to face<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">meeting in January 2010 which sets forth the rationale for needing such<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">a working session. This draft was discussed by the PDP Work Team on<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">e-mail and during two conference calls. Although there was not a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">consensus on the request for such a face to face meeting within the PDP<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">WT, there was strong support from the RySG, the IP Constituency, the ISP<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Constituency, ALAC and one of the two Business Constituency<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">representatives for the reasons stated within the attached document. <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The Registrar representatives and 1 of the business constituency<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">representatives were not in favor of the request. The NCSG generally<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">believes that there could be a positive benefit from a face to face<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">meeting with the caveats expressed below. The PDP WT offers no opinion<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">in this document on the general role of face to face meetings, the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Council's role in approving or supporting those face to face meetings,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">etc., but rather focuses on our specific request.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The request was sent to the full Policy Process Steering Committee on<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">December 5, 2009, and although no comments were actually received from<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">any person on the PPSC that was not already a member of the PDP WT,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">there were a number of e-mails on various mailing lists on this topic. <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The discussions are primarily archived on two lists: (i) the PPSC list<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">(<a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/">http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/</a>) and (ii) the PDP-WT list (the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">PDP WT list - <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/">http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/</a>). It should<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">be noted that the PPSC as a whole has been inactive since the formation<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of the Work Teams early this year. In fact some members of the PPSC<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">listed at<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?policy_process_steering_committee_ppsc">https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?policy_process_steering_committee_ppsc</a>,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">may not be members of the Council or even active in the community. That<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">is a separate issue that I plan on addressing in the next few weeks. <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The NCSG arguments can be found in full at<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/msg00241.html">http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/msg00241.html</a>. To summarize,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the NCSG has argued that there is not a consensus of the group in<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">support of (i) the rationale for the Face to Face meeting, (ii) the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">appropriateness of holding such a meeting in the United States, and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">(iii) the resolution of how many people from each SG or constituency<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">should be funded by ICANN to attend. The NCSG believes that there<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">should be parity of representatives funded to attend face to face<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">meetings by Stakeholder Group (as opposed to by Constituency). Finally,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">there was a question raised as to who makes the decisions on holding and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">funding these types of meetings (the Work Team, the Steering Committee,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the GNSO Council, ICANN Policy Staff, etc.).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Whether or not we have a face to face meeting, each member of the PDP WT<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">with the exception of one business constituency representative believes<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">that the work of the PDP-WT is essential and should be of the highest<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">priority of the GNSO Council and community. The work being performed in<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the WT was work directed to be done ultimately by the Board Governance<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Committee as part of the GNSO Improvements Process. The finalization of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the Policy Development Process will guide how all future policy is made<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">under the new structure and as such should be resolved as quickly as<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">possible. The review of the PDP is incredibly broad and complex. There<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">are a number of difficult issues that we have been, and continue to be,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">tackling in order to come up with a process acceptable to the global<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Internet community. The core group of participants (including ICANN<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">policy staff) are diverse, knowledgeable, passionate and highly<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">respected members of the community and are fully committed to seeing<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">this process through to the end regardless of having this face to face<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">meeting. I have the utmost respect for each member of the team.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Please let me know if you have any questions. I would be happy to make<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">myself available for the Council meeting to address any questions.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Thank you for your consideration of our request.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Jeffrey J. Neuman , PDP Work Team Chair<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 /<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz">jeff.neuman@neustar.biz</a> / <a href="http://www.neustar.biz">www.neustar.biz</a> <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">have received this e-mail message in error and any review,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">notify us immediately and delete the original message.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>