Re: [council] Discussion around face 2 face meetings
Thanks Denise for getting the conversation going again on this issue. And thanks for taking the time to provide input on it. It's important to be clear that the RrSG is worried about a possible trend. Our intent is not to wait until after the fact to draw attention to a problem we see as growing. As you rightly point out, there has already been one formal request for F2F meeting support. The toolkit recommendations that I have just mentioned in another email to the Council list also suggest that support be made available for F2F meetings. Taking some of your points: 2. The example that the RrSG brought to the attention of the Council (PPSC Work Team) is not the STI. Other requests do therefore seem to be in the pipeline. 3. Staff is getting input from the Council: this discussion was started by the Council and the RrSG has already provided its view. Other SGs or constituencies may follow. 4. I see potential problems here. Some could argue that all the issues we deal with are "unique and compelling". Hopefully, the work the Council has undertaken on prioritization will help bring to the fore what we consider to be the major top-of-the-list "unique and compelling" issues. But I wonder if deciding to allocate travel support for Work Teams initiated by the Council should not be a decision that rests with the Council, rather than solely with staff? I appreciate that staff is only trying to get things moving along in the best way possible, but the Council would probably appreciate being told which WTs are afforded travel support, so as to be able to have some input on this. 5. I would not agree with (what seems to be) your assertion that this is a "one-off" event and hence, we not need worry about it. As mentioned above (bullet 2.) there are other teams that seem to be entertaining the idea of asking for F2F meeting support. I fully agree with you that there is not clear precedent of this at this stage. This is why I think it's good for the Council to look at the subject now, rather than wait until it has become a bigger issue to tackle it. At this stage, the RrSG is simply trying to foster discussion on the matter. Thanks again for your time Denise. Stéphane Le 3 déc. 2009 à 08:45, Denise Michel a écrit : > Dear Stéphane, > > Thank you for your email about the proposed PDP Work Team's face-to-face > meeting. You raise some useful questions and points and I'll try to address > each one. > You mention a "trend towards more F2F meetings," but actually the trend is > away from F2F if you look at the GNSO's practice in the last several years. > I have only received one request for an ICANN-supported, in-person meeting > from a GNSO working group/committee. In previous years, the GNSO Council met > in person several times to address new gTLD policy work. As part of new gTLD > implementation efforts, ICANN has funded some limited working meetings this > year, but these were separate from policy development and the GNSO, and were > supported in response to a unique Board mandate. > Regarding the concerns the Registrars raised about this face-to-face meeting, > it may be helpful to keep in mind that: > This request is not related to any particular PDP. The work of the PDP Work > Team is addressing the Board's GNSO Improvements Report request to revise the > policy development process. > Although a face-to-face meeting may have been discussed by the STI, there are > no other recent or pending requests that Staff is aware of for > ICANN-supported policy meetings. > Staff would welcome input and guidance from the PPSC (in this case) and the > Council on this proposed meeting. However, the decision to provide ICANN > support is not a unilateral one of a work team (as suggested), but a question > of travel funding for Staff to consider. In the near future, Staff will be > soliciting Council input on ICANN's budget and operating plan for the next > fiscal year as done in the past, but with increased emphasis on estimating > specific SO funding needs such as this one earlier on in the planning cycle. > We do want to encourage the Council to play a more active role in forecasting > budgetary and resource requirements on an annual basis, and to help ICANN use > fees wisely and maintain the appropriate budget levels. > ICANN agreed to provide some travel support for a limited number of PDP Work > Team participants to enable significant progress to be made on developing a > new policy development process. I think there is a strong case to be made > that this is a unique and compelling need and that important goals can be > met. Objectives and a suggested agenda have been provided for this meeting. > Staff does not view this meeting as a new "emphasis on face-to-face > meetings," but rather a one-off event. Teleconferences, email lists and > webcasts will continue to be the basis for ICANN's policy development > activities. > Thanks, again, for the input on this important matter. > > Denise > > Denise Michel > ICANN Vice President > Policy Development > > > ________________________________ > > To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [council] Discussion around face 2 face meetings > From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:14:38 +0100 > List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > ________________________________ > > Dear all, > > There currently seems to be a trend towards more and more requests being made > for ICANN resources to fund F2F meetings. This trend now seems to be spilling > over into work teams that would previously have probably not made them but > simply endeavored to complete their work through teleconference calls and > email > correspondence. > > On a personal basis, I find this trend worrying as it places an undue > financial > burden on ICANN and is not, in my view, viable in the long term unless we > accept that a) ICANN's budget needs to grow exponentially and without limits > and b) that participation in work teams means making oneself available to > travel (with the inherent tendency that follows for only those people whom > either have lots of time to devote to the ICANN process will tend to > participate). > > However, I have not before approached this topic with the Council as I did > not > have concrete examples to provide. But a recent example has come to light, > and > I have been asked by the RrSG to forward the following message to the > Council. > This message comes from a member of PPSC WT who has asked that it be very > clearly stated that this comment is not in any way meant as a criticism of > Jeff > Neuman, the chair of the group, whom has done an excellent job despite some > difficult working conditions. > > Message reads: > > The PPSC PDP Work Team has proposed an ICANN-funded face-to-face meeting in > Washington DC next year. The RrSG objects to this proposal on the following > grounds: > > We are concerned about the potential for precedent this move would set for > future PDPs struggling to meet the challenges of participation and schedule > pressure. > > We are concerned about an expansion of ICANN-funded travel, and the impact > this > will have on budgets & fees. As such, we request that this (and any future) > proposed meetings that call for ICANN funding be subject to a full vote of > the > Council, and are not decided unilaterally at the working-group level. > > It is difficult to commit support, in advance, for any meeting that does not > have a detailed & defined agenda. > > And finally, we believe that an emphasis on face-to-face meetings (as opposed > to remote teleconferences / webcasts) is a retreat from ICANN's mission of > global participation and inclusion of interests outside the US. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|