Re: [council] RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
This ties in very closely with the discussion I initiated a few days ago on the Council list about F2F meetings in general. It is clearly something we need to discuss at Council level. Stéphane Le 10 déc. 2009 à 08:21, Mike Rodenbaugh a écrit : > > As a WT member, I have never believed this WT needs a F2F meeting, and find > the rationale in the document flimsy. If there is a F2F meeting, Staff and > the WG Chair ought not be deciding who gets to go, or who is funded. > > As a Councilor, I think this work is low priority compared to most of the > other ongoing efforts, and it should be up to Council to decide about these > matters, not Staff and/or a WG itself. > > By unilaterally deeming this work so important, Staff sends a strong signal > to all of the other WGs that their work is not as important. I take strong > exception to that. Perhaps the lack of volunteer interest in this group, > which in fact is a major reason for the proposed F2F meeting, is the > strongest indicator that this work is not a high priority for the community. > Many other WGs have much stronger participation, and all of them would like > to finish their work ASAP too, and surely a F2F meeting would assist in that > regard. > > Sorry I missed that this had gone to the PPSC, since I am on the PPSC, and > the PPSC-PDP-WT, and there is a lot of cross-posting to those lists, it is > difficult to keep track. We agreed at the outset that any call for > consensus of the PPSC would be clearly labeled as such, and Jeff's request > was not. Also it was heavy-handed and misleading, insofar as the WT should > not be coming directly to Council, as that is what the PPSC is for. The > required next step is for the PPSC to consider this request, and then make a > recommendation to Council, as that has not been done yet. > > Mike Rodenbaugh > RODENBAUGH LAW > 548 Market Street > San Francisco, CA 94104 > (415) 738-8087 > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] > On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:22 PM > To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx > Cc: Gomes, Chuck > Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face > Meeting > > > Mike, > > Can I drill down on your concern a little bit for clarification. Is it > your concern as a Work Team member about the face to face meeting, or is > it in your capacity as a Councilor? Do you not believe the work team > would benefit from a face to face meeting? Do you agree or disagree > with the rationale for a meeting as reflected in the document? Do you > agree or disagree with who gets funding as proposed in the request? > > Or, as you have expressed, your concerns really are really related to > believing the GNSO Council has higher priorities, should consider > budget, the work is not important, etc..... > > If your concerns are the ones in the first paragraph above, then please > let the group know because I believe those are the ones relevant to our > request to the Council. If your concerns are related to the second > paragraph, I do not mean to belittle them, but the place for those > arguments are not in the request itself, but rather in your Council > deliberations on the request. That is the reason I did not include them > in my note. You have every right, and frankly should, bring up your > concerns to the council about priorities, funding in general for F2F > meetings, just like the registrars have done. But I am not sure that > those concerns should be documented in the request itself. > > Please let me know your thoughts. > > Thanks. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy > > > 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. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:37 PM > To: 'Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx'; 'GNSO Council' > Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face > Meeting > > > I also did not and do not support this, and would have expected it to go > to > the PPSC before the Council, as that is the structure we deliberately > put in > place at the beginning of this process. > > Mike Rodenbaugh > RODENBAUGH LAW > 548 Market Street > San Francisco, CA 94104 > (415) 738-8087 > http://rodenbaugh.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 3:53 PM > To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face > Meeting > > > Hi, > > I do believe you misrepresented the full consensus on the team as I did > not > participate in such consensus. > > I also think you have distorted the NCSG reasoning very prejudicially. > > I also do not believe you even asked for a PPSC consensus call. > > a. > > On 10 Dec 2009, at 00:17, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >> 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_commit > tee_ > 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 tho! > se 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 con! > clusions 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 / 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. >> >> <Request for a PDP WT Face to Face meeting - updated 3 December > 2009.doc> > > > > > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|