ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] AW: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting

  • To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] AW: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:33:40 -0500
  • Cc: <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>, <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <491CBCCD-9F4C-460E-B2A6-4E3C00A7D820@indom.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <3F4F8917F53D5344889872BDDF2F3D3A01B545C8@STNTEXCH12.cis.neustar.com> <1A98909A-0759-4952-8E0A-AA48DAB5C518@acm.org> <065301ca7930$e5d7b2b0$b1871810$@com> <3F4F8917F53D5344889872BDDF2F3D3A01B545D6@STNTEXCH12.cis.neustar.com> <06dd01ca7969$60105310$2030f930$@com> <8A291574-4B64-4936-8CE8-D7517053F867@mac.com> <592F47825989E0468B5D719E571C6AEEBC9A38@s4de8dsaanr.west.t-com.de> <491CBCCD-9F4C-460E-B2A6-4E3C00A7D820@indom.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Acp5xiufFTfbOw42Qg+8zNYW0aMi5QAAGHOg
  • Thread-topic: [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
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>