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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Quick question does it need to be cleared through the PPSC as well since this 
is a team of that group?


thanks

a.

On 27 Nov 2009, at 10:13, Marika Konings wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 
>