[council] AW: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
Gomes, Chuck
cgomes at verisign.com
Thu Dec 10 18:33:40 UTC 2009
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 at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:21 PM
> To: <KnobenW at telekom.de>
> Cc: lizawilliams at mac.com; icann at rodenbaugh.com;
> gnso-ppsc-pdp at icann.org; council at 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 at telekom.de>
> <KnobenW at 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 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_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 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/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 5484 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20091210/5b69a30a/smime.p7s>
More information about the council
mailing list