Re: AW: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Note from Council List of F2F Meeting

["Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agree w Wolf-Ulrich. After all, we are crafting what one might think of as the 
skeleton. 
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:39:53 
To: <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>; <avri@xxxxxxx>; <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: AW: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Note from Council List of F2F Meeting

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 
<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 
<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 
 > <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 
 >> <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 <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.
 >> 
 > 
 >