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

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

Staff has promised to provide budget information Tim.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 1:11 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Neuman,Jeff; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx; Zahid Jamil; 
> icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face 
> to Face Meeting
> 
> And hopefully those who support it don't attempt to dismiss others'
> concerns about procedure and process in a rush to get the F2F 
> approved (funded). IF the PPSC is dysfunctional, that's a 
> serious issue and should be dealt with. The improvements plan 
> (that was agreed on after considerable effort) relies heavily 
> on the two Steering Committees.
> 
> I would like to understand what the improvements budget is, 
> and spend some time considering how that may be spent before 
> making any decision on adhoc funding for F2F meetings. We may 
> get similar requests from other WTs and we should at least 
> attempt to be responsible managers of this process, including 
> expenditures. That requires some minimal time to consider.
> 
> 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 11:11 am
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Neuman,Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, 
> <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>, "Zahid Jamil" 
> <zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Thanks for the comments Tim. It is my understanding that the 
> PPSC was consulted on this but responses only came from PPSC 
> members who were also on the PDP WT. I get the impression 
> though that the PPSC may have become somewhat disfunctional 
> maybe because of lack of activity and turnover of membership. 
> If that is the case, as the chair of the PPSC has 
> communicated, then we have a complication to the original 
> process that we need to deal with. I have already made some 
> suggestions to Jeff in that regard, in particular that we 
> should review the PPSC membership and possibly make an effort 
> to invite new members if needed.
> 
> We have experienced this problem in nearly every group we 
> have ever formed. There are active members and inactive 
> members. How much delay do we allow because of inactive members?
> 
> The steering committees were implemented to coordinate the 
> work of developing GNSO improvement implementation 
> recommendations and as you say serve as an interface between 
> the Council and WTs. In the case of the OSC, I think that has 
> worked very well. Hopefully, that will work with the PPSC as 
> well but this is the first real test of that. So I think that 
> we need to evaluate what steps may need to be taken, if any, 
> to make sure that the PPSC operates as intended.
> 
> My personal opinion is that it would be much more productive 
> for us to focus on the merits or lack thereof of the F2F 
> meeting request than to get hung up on procedural and process 
> issues, especially because the functionality of the PPSC may 
> be somewhat limited and because the process was intended to 
> improve efficiency not become a bureaucratic roadblock. PPSC 
> members who have not commented on this issue are still 
> welcome to before our meeting next Thursday.
> 
> I encourage those who oppose the F2F meeting request to make 
> their case against it rather than use process and procedural 
> arguments to delay or prevent it. Process and procedures are 
> very important to what we do but I would hope we wouldn't use 
> them as political tools but rather as a means to make our 
> work as productive and effective as possible.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 11:39 AM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: Neuman,Jeff; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx; Zahid Jamil; 
> > icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face 
> > Meeting
> > 
> > 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_steer
> > ing_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.
> > 
> >
> 
>