ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

Yep, all I'm saying is let's not refuse to discuss it at the next meeting just 
because the 8 day requirement wasn't met.

I'm not presuming anything as to how that discussion might go.



Le 11 déc. 2009 à 18:08, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

> The work of the PDP-WT does not have to stop while it waits for a
> decision on funding for a F2F. The timing of their request in relation
> to when they would like to have a F2F should not be a factor here, and
> it is not the main issue we should be concerned with in making this
> decision. I have no problem discussing it at our next meeting, but would
> fully support putting off any vote until the next Council meeting.
> Tim  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face
> Meeting
> From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, December 11, 2009 10:57 am
> To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, 
> "Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
> Considering the timing issues highlighted by Jeff in his request, I
> think Council should make an exception and discuss it at the next
> meeting.
> We should also be mindful of the precedent any decision the Council
> takes on this (whether for or against) will set.
> I am worried about the risk of generating multiple requests for F2F
> meetings from groups if we come out in favor of this request.
> I am also worried about the apparent dysfunctional nature of the PPSC
> that is being described here. If it is true that the PPSC has spent its
> last 3 teleconferences discussing its need for a F2F meeting, then this
> is a clear example of the system treading on its own head. If this
> really is the case, and I've also seen Jeff lament the lack of
> participation from his group (and once again, all credit to Jeff for his
> job as chair), then I think Council needs to call the PPSC to account
> before even considering any F2F meeting requests from one of the PPSC
> subgroups.
> It may be that the PPSC needs Council's help or guidance in becoming a
> functional group again. And that may be the first order of business for
> us in any PPSC discussion.
> Thanks,
> Stéphane
> Le 11 déc. 2009 à 17:38, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
>> Chuck,
>> I think Mike's point about the PDP-WT's request first being evaluated by
>> the PPSC is correct. The PDP-WT was formed by the PPSC, not the Council.
>> If the PPSC has not been consulted then I agree that it should be
>> consulted before the Council take any action on this. The timing of the
>> request in relation to the actual F2F should not be used as an excuse to
>> try to hurry this along. If approved, the WT can meet in February if
>> January doesn't work out.
>> The PDP-WT has had considerable time to make the request considering
>> when it first came up (before Seoul). It appears to me the last three or
>> so conference calls have focused on it. In fact, if they'd spent their
>> time actually dealing with charter issues instead of debating the F2F
>> issue there may not be a need for a F2F.
>> As you said yourself, "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." And, "there are no provisions in any of the documents
>> that govern Council operation that provide procedures for Council action
>> on issues like this." So I don't think it is wise for Council to rush to
>> a vote on this.
>> Tim
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face
>> Meeting
>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Fri, December 11, 2009 9:40 am
>> To: <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>,
>> "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 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
>> 548 Market Street
>> San Francisco, CA 94104
>> (415) 738-8087
>> 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/) and (ii) 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_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 / 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.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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