RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please note my responses below Mike.  Please understand that my comments should 
not be interpreted to mean that I support or oppose the request.  That is a 
decision for the whole Council to make and the reason it is being added to the 
agenda is so that the Council can consider the pros and cons.  I plan to 
participate in that discussion in our meeting and will voice my personal 
opinions and those of the RySG in that regard then.  
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:29 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face 
Meeting
        
        

        The BC will exercise its right to push any vote on this issue to the 
next meeting in Jaunuary, as we have not begun to discuss the issue and 
therefore have not come to a consensus position.  The issue certainly does not 
warrant emergency consideration in the next 7 days, particularly given all of 
the other issues we are considering these days.
        [Gomes, Chuck] To what "right" are you referring? It is correct that we 
have had a consistent practice of honoring a request by any constituency if 
they needed more time to consider an issue.  I support that practice if such a 
request is coming from a Stakeholder Group and I think even if it comes from a 
constituency within a SG, so I personally would like to request from you Mike 
and Zahid as Councilors from the BC, that you would both confirm that the BC 
supports your request for delay.  It is my understanding that the BC has an 
Executive Committee, so if it is not possible to confirm this with the full BC 
membership, I am sure that your executive committee could act on my request 
between now and 17 December.  It has also been a practice of the Council to 
consider exceptions to procedures and practices in cases where time sensitivity 
is a factor.  In our meeting on Thursday we will debate whether an exception is 
warranted in this case as well as whether the work of this WT is a high 
priority.  Please note Mike that a request to delay a decision on this means 
that a F2F meeting, if supported, could likely not happen in January as 
proposed by the WT and that a delay until February could possibly reduce the 
progress made on the PDP work before the Nairobi meeting.  Finally, considering 
the fact that you are a member of the PDP WT on behalf of the BC, am I correct 
in assuming that you have kept the BC membership informed of the issues the WT 
has considered including the possibility of a F2F meeting on an ongoing basis?  
If so, am I correct in assuming that you have already obtained feedback from BC 
members on this issue?  It seems to me that the BC has had considerable time to 
discuss this issue, so to invoke a Council practice may not be well justified 
in your case.

         

        Also, the PDP-WT should not be making requests of Council, especially 
requests that do not have consensus even of the WT.  The PPSC should be 
evaluating this request now, and should make any recommendation to Council, if 
any.  This was the process that was agrees when we formed the PPSC and the WTs, 
and there is no justification to ignore it now, simply because a WT Chair, some 
of its members, and a few ICANN Staff apparently think this is an emergency to 
schedule a F2F meeting.
        [Gomes, Chuck] I understand that you personally oppose this request but 
I encourage you not to use process and procedural arguments to advance your 
personal agenda.  If this is truly a BC issue, fine, but I again I ask you and 
Zahid to please confirm that the BC membership and/or executive committee 
supports your request for a delay. 

         

        If Council is going to act on this request, it must be in the context 
of our overall prioritization work, and not on an 'emergency' basis as appears 
to be requested.
        [Gomes, Chuck] No one to my knowledge has called this an emergency but 
there are clearly those who believe it is a higher priority than you do. The 
goal in our upcoming meeting is to get a sense of where the full Council is on 
this. And I look forward to a lively discussion on the pros and cons. 

         

        Mike Rodenbaugh

        RODENBAUGH LAW

        548 Market Street

        San Francisco, CA  94104

        (415) 738-8087 
<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact>
 

        http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

         

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 6:02 AM
        To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Cc: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
        Importance: High

         

        Here is a request from Jeff Neuman, chair of the PDP WT and chair of 
the PPSC, for a face-to-face (F2F) WT meeting including ICANN travel funding 
support.  Please ignore a previous version of Jeff's message distributed on the 
Council list because it was sent to the Council list prematurely.

         

        Please note that a detailed request is provided in the attached file.  
In preparation for our Council meeting on 17 December, please review Jeff's 
message below and the attached file for discussion and possible action by the 
Council in that meeting.  And please forward this message with the attachment 
to your respective groups immediately so that they can do the same and provide 
Councilors input before 17 December and thereby provide you any direction they 
have on this issue.

         

        Note that this request was received after the required deadline in the 
Council Operation Procedures so we will have to decide whether to make an 
exception to the Procedures before taking any action.  The reason for 
considering this exception is because the request is for a F2F meeting in 
January and to delay a decision until our 7 January meeting would be too late 
to allow adequate time for travel plans and other arrangements.  Also note that 
there are no provisions in any of the documents that govern Council operation 
that provide procedures for Council action on issues like this; we quite 
possibly will need to consider that topic sometime in the future.  At present 
though, I believe it is important for the Council to be involved in this 
decision because already budgeted GNSO Improvement funds used for this request 
would not be available for funding of other such requests in the future or for 
other GNSO improvement implementation actions in this fiscal year.  Staff will 
provide more details on funds available.

         

        Jeff Neuman has been invited to participate in the 17 December Council 
meeting so he can be available to answer questions.

         

        In the meantime, I encourage discussion on the Council list.

         

        Chuck

         

        
________________________________


        From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:47 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting

        Chuck,

         

        Please find enclosed a request by the PDP Work Team for a face to face 
meeting in January 2010 which sets forth the rationale for needing such a 
working session.  This draft  was discussed by the PDP Work Team on e-mail and 
during two conference calls.  Although there was not a consensus on the request 
for such a face to face meeting within the PDP WT, there was strong support 
from the RySG, the IP Constituency, the ISP Constituency, ALAC and one of the 
two Business Constituency representatives  for the reasons stated within the 
attached document.  The Registrar representatives and 1 of the business 
constituency representatives were not in favor of the request.  The NCSG 
generally believes that there could be a positive benefit from a face to face 
meeting with the caveats expressed below.  The PDP WT offers no opinion in this 
document on the general role of face to face meetings, the Council's role in 
approving or supporting those face to face meetings, etc., but rather focuses 
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 a 
number of e-mails on various mailing lists on this topic.  The discussions are 
primarily archived on two lists:  (i) the PPSC list 
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/ 
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/> ) and (ii) the PDP-WT list (the PDP 
WT list - http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/ 
<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_committee_ppsc
 
<https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?policy_process_steering_committee_ppsc>
 , may not be members of the Council or even active in the community.  That is 
a separate issue that I plan on addressing in the next few weeks.  

         

        The NCSG arguments can be found in full at 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/msg00241.html.  To summarize, the 
NCSG has argued that there is not a consensus of the group in support of (i) 
the rationale for the Face to Face meeting, (ii) the appropriateness of holding 
such a meeting in the United States, and (iii) the resolution of how many 
people from each SG or constituency should be funded by ICANN to attend.   The 
NCSG believes that there should be parity of representatives funded to attend 
face to face meetings by Stakeholder Group (as opposed to by Constituency).  
Finally, there was a question raised as to who makes the decisions on holding 
and funding these types of meetings (the Work Team, the Steering Committee, the 
GNSO Council, ICANN Policy Staff, etc.).

         

        Whether or not we have a face to face meeting, each member of the PDP 
WT with the exception of one business constituency representative believes that 
the work of the PDP-WT is essential and should be of the highest priority of 
the GNSO Council and community.  The work being performed in the WT was work 
directed to be done ultimately by the Board Governance Committee as part of the 
GNSO Improvements Process.  The finalization of the Policy Development Process 
will guide how all future policy is made under the new structure and as such 
should be resolved as quickly as possible.  The review of the PDP is incredibly 
broad and complex.  There are a number of difficult issues that we have been, 
and continue to be, tackling in order to come up with a process acceptable to 
the global Internet community.  The core group of participants (including ICANN 
policy staff) are diverse, knowledgeable, passionate and highly respected 
members of the community and are fully committed to seeing this process through 
to the end regardless of having this face to face meeting.  I have the utmost 
respect for each member of the team.

         

        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 <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>   / www.neustar.biz 
<http://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.