<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: AW: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Note from Council List of F2F Meeting
- To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Note from Council List of F2F Meeting
- From: Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:12:13 +0000
I support Wolf-Ulrich points particularly with respect to the
Council's prioritization of this work. Policy development work is the
only task the Council has. It must be done with appropriate resources.
Liz
On 27 Nov 2009, at 09:39, KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Jeff and all:
I understand from the discussion that - since it was picked up by
the RrSG - the question has reached council level already. And the
council shouldn't wait for a formal request since as PDP-WT we are
extremely under pressure with our ambitious time plan.
What to do? The next council meeting is scheduled for Dec 17. Can we
expect comprehensive information on the subject (I guess provided by
staff) prior to that date? It should contain relevant information on
all tentative (only materialized!) F2F meetings in addition to that
one of the PDP-WT. In this respect I would like to encourage you to
act as a driver.
I also would clearly state my personal position. I'm in favour of
holding an F2F meeting in this case (PDP-WT) as we're really trying
to set a new and solid basis for ICANN's core business. This has to
be mirrored in the council's prioritization scheme as well.
Again, I'd like to encourage you to initiate providing relevant
information for council discussion.
Best regards and have a nice weekend
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
] Im Auftrag von Neuman, Jeff
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. November 2009 16:12
An: Avri Doria; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Note from Council List of F2F Meeting
I agree. If the Council wishes to take this up, we should draft a
statement with rationale, costs, etc.
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 Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:07 AM
To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Note from Council List of F2F Meeting
Hi,
Seems a reasonable suggestion.
I would think that as managers of the process they would need to
know why it was necessary and would need a view as to the budget for
the trip. In figuring out the budget they would need to know how
many people per SG were being budgeted to go (I assume this would be
done on the basis of SG since that is the new metric for the GNSO)
and what the average pricetag would be. I would also think that in
calculating the budget, the price of the attendant staff would be
included as well as the costs of any extra people whether volunteer,
staff or paid consultant who was being brought along due to the
necessary content they could add to the process.
So I agree with you, let the Managers manage. But first give them
adequate information for the decision.
a.
On 25 Nov 2009, at 09:53, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
Thanks Avri. Here is the personal response I sent one of our
Council reps:
"My personal view for what it is worth is that it should be subject
to a vote of the Council if they want to take it up. As the
managers of the process this is properly within their scope and I
will certainly defer to the wishes of the Council on this subject."
However, if the PDP WT has a different view than mine, please let
me know and I will communicate that to the Council.
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 Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 9:44 AM
To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Note from Council List of F2F Meeting
Hi,
After spending over a quarter of a century in the IETF where all
the hard lifting is done on email lists, and having spent 5 years
in ICANN where we seem to do very little on email lists, I can't
help but wonder why. Some people people say it is because tech is
so much more straightforward then policy - but i expect these
people have never been in argument about the proper use of the last
few bits in a protocol field or the length of an address field. So
I do not understand why we cannot use the Internet more to get our
work done. I do not know of how many meetings I have been at where
on one or two of us have bothered to send in comments before the
meeting on the text under discussion.
I am of two minds about travel for face to face meetings. I tend
to be against it thinking we should use all of the marvels of the
Internet from email to waves to Web 2.0 tools to get our work done
in our spare time in our regular places of residence. I know many
people don't like learning new tools, but I do believe it takes
less time to learn a new tool then it takes to fly around the world
and back.
On the other hand I know that many people still think face to face
is the right way, sometime the only way, to come to consensus on
tough issues. And who am I to argue with their certainties. In
those rare occasions where it is really needed, i think it is
essential to make sure that all who need to travel, can. If face
to face is the only way to resolve the tough issues, then all the
relevant participants need to be there.
So I guess my advice is be parsimonious in deciding to have face to
face meetings, but if you have to, be generous in getting people
there.
a.
On 25 Nov 2009, at 08:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
All,
FYI. The following was posted on the Council list and I thought I
should forward this around:
http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07934.html
[council] Discussion around face 2 face meetings
* To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
* Subject: [council] Discussion around face 2 face meetings
* From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
* Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:14:38 +0100
* List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
* Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear all,
There currently seems to be a trend towards more and more requests
being made
for ICANN resources to fund F2F meetings. This trend now seems to
be spilling
over into work teams that would previously have probably not made
them but
simply endeavored to complete their work through teleconference
calls and email
correspondence.
On a personal basis, I find this trend worrying as it places an
undue financial
burden on ICANN and is not, in my view, viable in the long term
unless we
accept that a) ICANN's budget needs to grow exponentially and
without limits
and b) that participation in work teams means making oneself
available to
travel (with the inherent tendency that follows for only those
people whom
either have lots of time to devote to the ICANN process will tend to
participate).
However, I have not before approached this topic with the Council
as I did not
have concrete examples to provide. But a recent example has come
to light, and
I have been asked by the RrSG to forward the following message to
the Council.
This message comes from a member of PPSC WT who has asked that it
be very
clearly stated that this comment is not in any way meant as a
criticism of Jeff
Neuman, the chair of the group, whom has done an excellent job
despite some
difficult working conditions.
Message reads:
The PPSC PDP Work Team has proposed an ICANN-funded face-to-face
meeting in
Washington DC next year. The RrSG objects to this proposal on the
following
grounds:
We are concerned about the potential for precedent this move would
set for
future PDPs struggling to meet the challenges of participation and
schedule
pressure.
We are concerned about an expansion of ICANN-funded travel, and
the impact this
will have on budgets & fees. As such, we request that this (and
any future)
proposed meetings that call for ICANN funding be subject to a full
vote of the
Council, and are not decided unilaterally at the working-group
level.
It is difficult to commit support, in advance, for any meeting
that does not
have a detailed & defined agenda.
And finally, we believe that an emphasis on face-to-face meetings
(as opposed
to remote teleconferences / webcasts) is a retreat from ICANN's
mission of
global participation and inclusion of interests outside the US.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Jeffrey J. Neuman
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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|