[ispcp] ISPCP call

Thu Dec 10 11:54:33 UTC 2009

Dear colleagues, 
for your info in preparation of the ISPCP call tomorrow I enclose the draft agenda of the Dec 17 council meeting. 
Secondly there's an intensive discussion going on funding a face to face meeting of the PDP working team which may be decided upon at the council meeting, too (see E-Mail from Jeff Neuman and the formal request attached). I personally support the request but would like to get feedback in order to fix an ISPCP position. 
Thirdly we should decide about travel support for the Nairobi meeting as we have to inform ICANN staff asap. 
Regards 
Wolf-Ulrich

 <<Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 17 December 2009.doc>>  <<Request for a PDP WT Face to Face meeting - updated 3 December 2009.doc>> 

Von: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Neuman, Jeff
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Dezember 2009 00:17
An: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; Liz Gasster; Marika Konings; Margie Milam; Gnso-ppsc-pdp at icann.org
Betreff: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] 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 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_committee_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 those 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 conclusions 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 <http://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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20091210/36208be8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 17 December 2009.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 26112 bytes
Desc: Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 17 December 2009.doc
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20091210/36208be8/AgendaforGNSOCouncilMeeting17December2009.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Request for a PDP WT Face to Face meeting - updated 3 December 2009.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 259584 bytes
Desc: Request for a PDP WT Face to Face meeting - updated 3 December 2009.doc
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20091210/36208be8/RequestforaPDPWTFacetoFacemeeting-updated3December2009.doc>