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


Sounds good. Thanks Chuck.

Stéphane

Le 10 déc. 2009 à 19:33, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

> 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 >>>