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
|