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. Thanks, Stéphane 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 >> RODENBAUGH LAW >> 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
|