[council] AW: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
Stéphane Van Gelder
stephane.vangelder at indom.com
Thu Dec 10 20:15:07 UTC 2009
Sounds good. Thanks Chuck.
Stéphane
Le 10 déc. 2009 à 19:33, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
> I apologise for any confusion that has been created. I wanted to avoid that
> by waiting to forward the request from the WT until some apparent
> controversy was cleared. Unfortunately, the Council list was added as a cc
> in one of the email messages.
>
> I became aware of the controversy shortly after I received the WT request
> and asked that an effort to resolve the controversy happen before I submit
> the request to the Council. I suggest that Councilors wait for the final
> request from the WT before getting too far into the discussion. I assure
> you that we will discuss it under AOB on 17 Dec.
>
> Chuck
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council 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/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2439 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20091210/ffb2d42b/smime.p7s>
More information about the council
mailing list