RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Glen,
 
If this has not already been posted, please hold off until we get confirmation 
from Jeff that this document is not going to change.  Jeff is working with Avri 
to clear up some wording in his communication to me; I believe that that 
relates to his email message and not to the request itself, but want to make 
sure.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
        Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 5:35 AM
        To: Council GNSO
        Subject: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
        
        

        The attached request will be posted on the GNSO website under draft 
documents

        http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/

         

        Glen

         

        Forwarded From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
        
        

         

        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@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>   / 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.