[council] RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting

Thu Dec 10 17:59:48 UTC 2009

This ties in very closely with the discussion I initiated a few days ago on the Council list about F2F meetings in general.

It is clearly something we need to discuss at Council level.

Stéphane

Le 10 déc. 2009 à 08:21, Mike Rodenbaugh a écrit :

> 
> 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:22 PM
> To: icann at rodenbaugh.com; Gnso-ppsc-pdp at 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 at icann.org
> [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:37 PM
> To: 'Gnso-ppsc-pdp at 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 at icann.org
> [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 3:53 PM
> To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp at 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 at 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>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2439 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20091210/77a25b6d/smime.p7s>