[council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
Gomes, Chuck
cgomes at verisign.com
Fri Dec 11 17:11:23 UTC 2009
Thanks for the comments Tim. It is my understanding that the PPSC was consulted on this but responses only came from PPSC members who were also on the PDP WT. I get the impression though that the PPSC may have become somewhat disfunctional maybe because of lack of activity and turnover of membership. If that is the case, as the chair of the PPSC has communicated, then we have a complication to the original process that we need to deal with. I have already made some suggestions to Jeff in that regard, in particular that we should review the PPSC membership and possibly make an effort to invite new members if needed.
We have experienced this problem in nearly every group we have ever formed. There are active members and inactive members. How much delay do we allow because of inactive members?
The steering committees were implemented to coordinate the work of developing GNSO improvement implementation recommendations and as you say serve as an interface between the Council and WTs. In the case of the OSC, I think that has worked very well. Hopefully, that will work with the PPSC as well but this is the first real test of that. So I think that we need to evaluate what steps may need to be taken, if any, to make sure that the PPSC operates as intended.
My personal opinion is that it would be much more productive for us to focus on the merits or lack thereof of the F2F meeting request than to get hung up on procedural and process issues, especially because the functionality of the PPSC may be somewhat limited and because the process was intended to improve efficiency not become a bureaucratic roadblock. PPSC members who have not commented on this issue are still welcome to before our meeting next Thursday.
I encourage those who oppose the F2F meeting request to make their case against it rather than use process and procedural arguments to delay or prevent it. Process and procedures are very important to what we do but I would hope we wouldn't use them as political tools but rather as a means to make our work as productive and effective as possible.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim at godaddy.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 11:39 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Neuman,Jeff; gnso-ppsc-pdp at icann.org; Zahid Jamil;
> icann at rodenbaugh.com; council at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face
> to Face Meeting
>
> Chuck,
>
> I think Mike's point about the PDP-WT's request first being
> evaluated by the PPSC is correct. The PDP-WT was formed by
> the PPSC, not the Council.
> If the PPSC has not been consulted then I agree that it
> should be consulted before the Council take any action on
> this. The timing of the request in relation to the actual F2F
> should not be used as an excuse to try to hurry this along.
> If approved, the WT can meet in February if January doesn't work out.
>
> The PDP-WT has had considerable time to make the request
> considering when it first came up (before Seoul). It appears
> to me the last three or so conference calls have focused on
> it. In fact, if they'd spent their time actually dealing with
> charter issues instead of debating the F2F issue there may
> not be a need for a F2F.
>
> As you said yourself, "already budgeted GNSO Improvement
> funds used for this request would not be available for
> funding of other such requests in the future or for other
> GNSO improvement implementation actions in this fiscal year."
> And, "there are no provisions in any of the documents that
> govern Council operation that provide procedures for Council
> action on issues like this." So I don't think it is wise for
> Council to rush to a vote on this.
>
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face
> to Face Meeting
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
> Date: Fri, December 11, 2009 9:40 am
> To: <icann at rodenbaugh.com>, <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Cc: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>,
> <gnso-ppsc-pdp at icann.org>, "Zahid Jamil" <zahid at jamilandjamil.com>
>
> Please note my responses below Mike. Please understand that
> my comments should not be interpreted to mean that I support
> or oppose the request.
> That is a decision for the whole Council to make and the
> reason it is being added to the agenda is so that the Council
> can consider the pros and cons. I plan to participate in
> that discussion in our meeting and will voice my personal
> opinions and those of the RySG in that regard then.
>
> Chuck
>
> From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann at rodenbaugh.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:29 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; council at gnso.icann.org
> Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'; gnso-ppsc-pdp at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face
> to Face Meeting
>
>
>
> The BC will exercise its right to push any vote on this issue to the
> next meeting in Jaunuary, as we have not begun to discuss the
> issue and
> therefore have not come to a consensus position. The issue certainly
> does not warrant emergency consideration in the next 7 days,
> particularly given all of the other issues we are considering these
> days.
> [Gomes, Chuck] To what "right" are you referring? It is
> correct that we
> have had a consistent practice of honoring a request by any
> constituency
> if they needed more time to consider an issue. I support
> that practice
> if such a request is coming from a Stakeholder Group and I
> think even if
> it comes from a constituency within a SG, so I personally
> would like to
> request from you Mike and Zahid as Councilors from the BC, that you
> would both confirm that the BC supports your request for delay. It is
> my understanding that the BC has an Executive Committee, so
> if it is not
> possible to confirm this with the full BC membership, I am sure that
> your executive committee could act on my request between now and 17
> December. It has also been a practice of the Council to consider
> exceptions to procedures and practices in cases where time sensitivity
> is a factor. In our meeting on Thursday we will debate whether an
> exception is warranted in this case as well as whether the
> work of this
> WT is a high priority. Please note Mike that a request to delay a
> decision on this means that a F2F meeting, if supported, could likely
> not happen in January as proposed by the WT and that a delay until
> February could possibly reduce the progress made on the PDP
> work before
> the Nairobi meeting. Finally, considering the fact that you are a
> member of the PDP WT on behalf of the BC, am I correct in
> assuming that
> you have kept the BC membership informed of the issues the WT has
> considered including the possibility of a F2F meeting on an ongoing
> basis? If so, am I correct in assuming that you have already obtained
> feedback from BC members on this issue? It seems to me that
> the BC has
> had considerable time to discuss this issue, so to invoke a Council
> practice may not be well justified in your case.
>
> Also, the PDP-WT should not be making requests of Council, especially
> requests that do not have consensus even of the WT. The PPSC
> should be
> evaluating this request now, and should make any recommendation to
> Council, if any. This was the process that was agrees when we formed
> the PPSC and the WTs, and there is no justification to ignore it now,
> simply because a WT Chair, some of its members, and a few ICANN Staff
> apparently think this is an emergency to schedule a F2F meeting.
> [Gomes, Chuck] I understand that you personally oppose this
> request but
> I encourage you not to use process and procedural arguments to advance
> your personal agenda. If this is truly a BC issue, fine, but
> I again I
> ask you and Zahid to please confirm that the BC membership and/or
> executive committee supports your request for a delay.
>
> If Council is going to act on this request, it must be in the
> context of
> our overall prioritization work, and not on an ‘emergency’ basis as
> appears to be requested.
> [Gomes, Chuck] No one to my knowledge has called this an emergency but
> there are clearly those who believe it is a higher priority
> than you do.
> The goal in our upcoming meeting is to get a sense of where the full
> Council is on this. And I look forward to a lively discussion on the
> pros and cons.
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> 548 Market Street
> San Francisco, CA 94104
> (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 6:02 AM
> To: council at gnso.icann.org
> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-ppsc-pdp at icann.org
> Subject: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to
> Face Meeting
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> Here is a request from Jeff Neuman, chair of the PDP WT and
> chair of the
> PPSC, for a face-to-face (F2F) WT meeting including ICANN
> travel funding
> support. Please ignore a previous version of Jeff's message
> distributed
> on the Council list because it was sent to the Council list
> prematurely.
>
> Please note that a detailed request is provided in the attached file.
> In preparation for our Council meeting on 17 December, please review
> Jeff's message below and the attached file for discussion and possible
> action by the Council in that meeting. And please forward
> this message
> with the attachment to your respective groups immediately so that they
> can do the same and provide Councilors input before 17 December and
> thereby provide you any direction they have on this issue.
>
> Note that this request was received after the required deadline in the
> Council Operation Procedures so we will have to decide whether to make
> an exception to the Procedures before taking any action. The
> reason for
> considering this exception is because the request is for a F2F meeting
> in January and to delay a decision until our 7 January
> meeting would be
> too late to allow adequate time for travel plans and other
> arrangements.
> Also note that there are no provisions in any of the documents that
> govern Council operation that provide procedures for Council action on
> issues like this; we quite possibly will need to consider that topic
> sometime in the future. At present though, I believe it is important
> for the Council to be involved in this decision because
> already budgeted
> GNSO Improvement funds used for this request would not be
> available for
> funding of other such requests in the future or for other GNSO
> improvement implementation actions in this fiscal year. Staff will
> provide more details on funds available.
>
> Jeff Neuman has been invited to participate in the 17 December Council
> meeting so he can be available to answer questions.
>
> In the meantime, I encourage discussion on the Council list.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us]
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:47 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-ppsc-pdp at icann.org; gnso-ppsc at icann.org
> Subject: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
> Chuck,
>
> Please find enclosed a request by the PDP Work Team for a face to face
> meeting in January 2010 which sets forth the rationale for
> needing such
> a working session. This draft was discussed by the PDP Work Team on
> e-mail and during two conference calls. Although there was not a
> consensus on the request for such a face to face meeting
> within the PDP
> WT, there was strong support from the RySG, the IP
> Constituency, the ISP
> Constituency, ALAC and one of the two Business Constituency
> representatives for the reasons stated within the attached document.
> The Registrar representatives and 1 of the business constituency
> representatives were not in favor of the request. The NCSG generally
> believes that there could be a positive benefit from a face to face
> meeting with the caveats expressed below. The PDP WT offers
> no opinion
> in this document on the general role of face to face meetings, the
> Council’s role in approving or supporting those face to face meetings,
> etc., but rather focuses 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 a number of e-mails on various mailing lists on
> this topic.
> The discussions are primarily archived on two lists: (i) the
> PPSC list
> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/) and (ii) 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_steer
> ing_committee_ppsc,
> may not be members of the Council or even active in the
> community. That
> is a separate issue that I plan on addressing in the next few weeks.
>
> The NCSG arguments can be found in full at
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/msg00241.html. To
> summarize,
> the NCSG has argued that there is not a consensus of the group in
> support of (i) the rationale for the Face to Face meeting, (ii) the
> appropriateness of holding such a meeting in the United States, and
> (iii) the resolution of how many people from each SG or constituency
> should be funded by ICANN to attend. The NCSG believes that there
> should be parity of representatives funded to attend face to face
> meetings by Stakeholder Group (as opposed to by
> Constituency). Finally,
> there was a question raised as to who makes the decisions on
> holding and
> funding these types of meetings (the Work Team, the Steering
> Committee,
> the GNSO Council, ICANN Policy Staff, etc.).
>
> Whether or not we have a face to face meeting, each member of
> the PDP WT
> with the exception of one business constituency
> representative believes
> that the work of the PDP-WT is essential and should be of the highest
> priority of the GNSO Council and community. The work being
> performed in
> the WT was work directed to be done ultimately by the Board Governance
> Committee as part of the GNSO Improvements Process. The
> finalization of
> the Policy Development Process will guide how all future
> policy is made
> under the new structure and as such should be resolved as quickly as
> possible. The review of the PDP is incredibly broad and
> complex. There
> are a number of difficult issues that we have been, and
> continue to be,
> tackling in order to come up with a process acceptable to the global
> Internet community. The core group of participants (including ICANN
> policy staff) are diverse, knowledgeable, passionate and highly
> respected members of the community and are fully committed to seeing
> this process through to the end regardless of having this face to face
> meeting. I have the utmost respect for each member of the team.
>
> 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.
>
>
More information about the council
mailing list