RE: [council] AW: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
I apologise for any confusion that has been created. I wanted to avoid that by waiting to forward the request from the WT until some apparent controversy was cleared. Unfortunately, the Council list was added as a cc in one of the email messages. I became aware of the controversy shortly after I received the WT request and asked that an effort to resolve the controversy happen before I submit the request to the Council. I suggest that Councilors wait for the final request from the WT before getting too far into the discussion. I assure you that we will discuss it under AOB on 17 Dec. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:21 PM > To: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: lizawilliams@xxxxxxx; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [council] AW: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP > Work Team Face to Face Meeting > > I would recommend against any decision to hold a F2F meeting > unless Council approves it. > > Right now this is a discussion that is going on across > several lists, and not all members of Council are on those > lists (I only got to read Liz' email because Wolf sent his > reply to it to the Council list). It is hard to follow. But > it does seem clear from various bits of conversation that > I've been able to read between Avri, Jeff, Mike and others, > that there are issues. It would be good for the whole Council > to hear those issues before a decision is taken. > > Wolf, just a FYI: you do not need the Chair or anyone else's > permission to submit a motion to the Council list. However, > that motion must be seconded and be submitted within the > required time limit to feature in the following Council meeting. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > > > Le 10 déc. 2009 à 11:20, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> > <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > > > > > Liz, > > > > That fully meets my expectation, too. I was also uncertain > about the > > procedure which body should decide upon. Since relevant pro and con > > arguments have lengthly been exchanged and lay on the table > in written > > form I think it's time to finish this story now by a > council decision > > on a related motion. Chuck, if you agree, I'll draft that > motion and > > will send it to you tomorrow (after an ISPCP call) for further > > appropriate discussion on council level. In case the council will > > discuss and take a vote I would suggest to put it on the > agenda as a > > dedicated item, not under AOB. > > > > Mike: With great respect to your opinion I must say that I > can't see > > any intention or indication to qualify any WT's work in > terms of more > > or less importance. It may be just the same signal to be sent when > > we'll set council's priorities - which btw is already an > ongoing task. > > In this respect I would allocate a higher priority rank to all > > "framing" work the results of which shall be to some extent > serve as a > > prerequisite for other important work. To my understanding the PDP > > gives a basic frame for council work. That's why it is > given special > > reference to in the bylaws. > > I would appreciate very much if you could join my suggestion on > > dealing with the matter next council meeting and bring up your > > arguments to this occasion. > > > > Best regards > > > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear everyone > > > > Whilst the commentary on who should go, why, for how much > and what for > > is interesting, where is the decision about whether the F2F > meeting is > > actually happening or not? Valuable work time is being > wasted when > > this is a simple administrative matter to be decided by the > Council (I > > think it's the Council?) > > > > The proposed dates are rapidly approaching and people > either need to > > allocate the time to those proposed days or not. > > > > Who makes that decision and when will it be made? > Somebody, please > > make an appropriate motion, vote on it and get done with it. > > > > Liz > > On 10 Dec 2009, at 07:21, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: > > > >> > >> 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_comm > > it > >> 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
|