[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Clarification (Re: Proposed F2F meeting in Buenos Aires - final selection)

Thu Mar 19 17:37:09 UTC 2015

Hello Kiran, Paul and everyone,

Thanks for the questions; we understand the additional demands and pressures
that more meetings, days and hours place on everyone who is already devoting
a substantial amount of time and energy to this PDP!

If I may take each question in turn, although some of the responses do
overlap:

Meeting coverage and agenda  I¹m afraid that we don¹t yet have a draft
agenda for discussion. A primary reason for this is that the WG is still
working through the complexities of Category F, which has meant that we have
had to revise our Work Plan a couple of times, resulting in the anticipated
date for publication of the WG¹s Initial Report being pushed back. I attach
a copy of the current and a proposed revised Work Plan that staff has just
circulated to the chairs, where you can see the change of dates. Both plans
still aim to have the WG review public comments and gear up for the Final
Report in Buenos Aires, with the goal to submit the Final Report to the GNSO
Council in good time before the next ICANN meeting in Dublin in October. As
this WG is expected to ask quite a few difficult questions of the community
during the public comment period and we also expect quite a lot of comments
in return, the hope was that being able to review and discuss those comments
(including preparing any WG responses or necessary follow ups) in a F2F
setting would be helpful.

Comparison with other PDP Working Groups  as the idea of F2F facilitated
PDP WG meetings is still in its pilot year, the only other group that has
been selected by the GNSO Council to conduct a similar, additional,
intensive meeting has been the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group (which
Phil Corwin, a member of this PPSAI WG, co-chairs). As the aim of these
meetings is to facilitate timely, effective discussions and
consensus-building, the Council selects a group for the exercise based on
the progress and anticipated milestones to be reached for that group. If it
will help, feedback from this WG (from October 2014) and the IGO-CRP group
(from February 2015) strongly suggests that having sufficient dedicated time
together to work through difficult or complex questions with the aid of a
neutral facilitator was extremely useful.

Accomplishments  clearly the optimal ideal situation would be to have every
single WG member ³in the room² so that consensus decisions can be made, but
practical realities are such that this may not always be the case. While I
wouldn¹t say that a group emerging from a F2F meeting should not reach at
least preliminary agreement, our experience with the first two F2F sessions
indicate that such preliminary agreement was the result of constructive and
dedicated discussion that weren¹t (somewhat artificially) limited by the
weekly one-hour slots, and the WG chairs have been very careful to
characterize these preliminary agreements as just that, for the full WG to
review when the overall analysis of the recommendations and a formal
consensus call is done.

Vote spread  here is the link to the results of the original poll showing
the representation of votes across the different interests and groups
represented in this WG: http://doodle.com/782mf9fgfrwyrszp#table

I hope this answer is helpful, and apologies for its length and my numerous
emails on the subject!

Cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong at icann.org

From:  Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com>
Date:  Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 12:43
To:  "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady at winston.com>, Mary Wong
<mary.wong at icann.org>, PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Clarification (Re: Proposed F2F meeting in
Buenos Aires - final selection)

> Thanks Paul for highlighting these questions and thanks to Mary in advance for
> addressing them. 
>  
> I would also like to add the following question:
>  
> ·         How were the votes split among the constituencies/stakeholder
> groups?  If we are to decide on a full day meeting, I would like to know how
> the makeup of the group that is available for that discussion at that time
> might affect the nature of the discussions.  We should strive to ensure that
> whatever option we choose, the group will be representative.  This is
> especially important because remote participation is not possible for those of
> us on flights that day.
> 
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Kiran
>  
> 
> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D.
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 9:33 AM
> To: Mary Wong; PPSAI
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Clarification (Re: Proposed F2F meeting in
> Buenos Aires - final selection)
>  
> Thanks Mary.
>  
> Please help us understand that landscape better.
>  
> 1.      What will be covered in these additional meetings?  Have we a draft
> agenda that shows we actually need the time?  If so, how much?
> 
> 2.     Are other WG¹s being asked to do their work on an extra day or during
> their evenings (making for 14-16 hour days)?  If so, which ones?  If not, what
> is so different about our work that keeps us from fitting it into the regular
> meeting?  I know there will be some conflicts that result from having our
> meeting during the regular hours of the Meeting, but that is true of every
> working group, team, session, and informal meeting.
> 
> 3.     Will anything actually be accomplishable?  Some have indicated on the
> list that since not everyone can attend, we can only discuss and not decide.
> I¹m not opposed to that in theory, but if these are discussions only, not
> actual meetings of the WG, is there any value in them?
> 
>  
> Thanks in advance.  Sorry to put you on the spot, but I want to be sure that
> the collective sacrifice, if one is to be made, has utility.
>  
> Best,
> Paul
>  
>  
>  
> 
> From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:25 AM
> To: PPSAI
> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Clarification (Re: Proposed F2F meeting in Buenos
> Aires - final selection)
>  
> 
> I¹ve been reminded that I did not include in my note the possibility that, for
> the Sunday/Wednesday evening slots, the times can be adjusted to some degree,
> e.g. if it would be better to do a session from 7-9 p.m. instead, which would
> give participants a short break from the day¹s proceedings before our F2F
> sessions.
> 
>  
> 
> I am sorry for the omission  please feel free to change your vote if this
> makes a difference, or if it will be easier for you, just send me an email and
> I¹ll be sure to include your email comments in our tally.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks and cheers
> 
> Mary
> 
>  
> 
> Mary Wong
> 
> Senior Policy Director
> 
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> 
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> 
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
> 
>  
> 
>  
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> Date: Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 11:37
> To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed F2F meeting in Buenos Aires - final
> selection
> 
>  
>> 
>> Dear WG members,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The WG chairs would greatly appreciate it if you can spare just a minute for
>> just one more quick poll on the question of when we hold our face-to-face
>> meeting in Buenos Aires.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The results of the first poll showed a preference for Friday 19 June by 9
>> members, with 6 other members preferring the two-session option. Staff has
>> checked with other departments (e.g. Compliance) as to their planned sessions
>> for the week in order to minimize conflicts as much as possible. However,
>> please note that much still depends on variables that we cannot ascertain at
>> this stage, especially the question of how many sessions there will be on
>> IANA stewardship transition and accountability, and when these will take
>> place. Nonetheless, we venture to suggest that the most feasible times for
>> the two-session option would be Sunday 21 June (possibly from 4.30-7.30 or
>> 5.00-8.00 p.m.) and Wednesday 24 June (similar times as for Sunday).
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> As such, we now have a choice to make as between Friday 19 June and a
>> combination of Sunday and Wednesday evenings as indicated above (though
>> please note that this may be subject to change).
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> In order to assist the chairs with the final decision, which they hope to
>> make as soon as possible to enable those planning to be in Buenos Aires to
>> confirm their travel arrangements, here is the new poll:
>> http://doodle.com/2zt2s2pnfm2k3sy5. As with the earlier poll, it¹s been
>> designed to show the chairs which is everyone¹s first option  please use the
>> Comments section if you have concerns, have no preference, or other comments.
>> For members who are not going to be in Buenos Aires, please note that full
>> remote participation facilities will be available for the F2F meeting.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thank you! FYI 19 members participated in the first poll, with 2 preferring
>> no F2F meeting and 1 voting for Friday 26 June.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Mary
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Mary Wong
>> 
>> Senior Policy Director
>> 
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>> 
>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
>> 
>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
> 
> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if
> this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it.
> Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable
> privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of
> the author.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150319/cd76f4a5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PPSAI - Work Plan v6 - 23 Feb 2015 DRAFT.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 60928 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150319/cd76f4a5/PPSAI-WorkPlanv6-23Feb2015DRAFT-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PPSAI - Work Plan v7 - 17 Mar 2015.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 55808 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150319/cd76f4a5/PPSAI-WorkPlanv7-17Mar2015-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5044 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150319/cd76f4a5/smime-0001.p7s>