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

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

All, I'm happy to put together a draft request that outlines the why and how of 
a possible face-to-face meeting for the PDP-WT to consider at its next meeting. 
Following your review and agreement, the Chair could then submit it to the 
Council for consideration at its next meeting.

Best regards,

Marika

On 27/11/09 14:49, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:



On 27 Nov 2009, at 04:39, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.

I am not sure how formal a formal request has to be.  Snce this groups has 
decided it wants to have the F2F, once the chair of the group has the info he 
should be able to make the request of the PPSC and the Council.

> 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 expect the staff has a template for expenses.  This group might, however, 
want to make recommendations on how many people per SG it intends to have 
funded for the meeting.  the staff might also want to inform the group of how 
big a contingent they would plan on bringing and on any extra consulting or 
other expenses such a trip would incur.

>
> 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.

I am not convinced it is necessary, though it seems like it might be helpful as 
long as enough participants are able to attend, but if the rest of the group 
thinks it is then it must be,

>
> Again, I'd like to encourage you to initiate providing relevant information 
> for council discussion.

seems reasonable.

On 27 Nov 2009, at 07:12, Liz Williams wrote:

> 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.


Do you mean management of the policy development work which the rest of us are 
supposed to be doing?

In any case this is not so much policy development by meta-policy development 
and can probably be properly classified as management of the PD work.

Just want to start really honing on what is in scope for the Council and what 
is outside their scope in this new GNSO regime.

a.