[gnso-ppsc-pdp] FW: [council] Discussion around face 2 face meetings

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

For your information, please see below.

Marika

------ Forwarded Message
From: Denise Michel <denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Denise Michel <denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 23:45:19 -0800
To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] Discussion around face 2 face meetings

Dear Stéphane,

Thank you for your email about the proposed PDP Work Team's face-to-face 
meeting.  You raise some useful questions and points and I'll try to address 
each one.

 *   You mention a "trend towards more F2F meetings," but actually the trend is 
away from F2F if you look at the GNSO's practice in the last several years.  I 
have only received one request for an ICANN-supported, in-person meeting from a 
GNSO working group/committee.  In previous years, the GNSO Council met in 
person several times to address new gTLD policy work.  As part of new gTLD 
implementation efforts, ICANN has funded some limited working meetings this 
year, but these were separate from policy development and the GNSO, and were 
supported in response to a unique Board mandate.
 *   Regarding the concerns the Registrars raised about this face-to-face 
meeting, it may be helpful to keep in mind that:
    *   This request is not related to any particular PDP.  The work of the PDP 
Work Team is addressing the Board's GNSO Improvements Report request to revise 
the policy development process.
    *   Although a face-to-face meeting may have been discussed by the STI, 
there are no other recent or pending requests that Staff is aware of for 
ICANN-supported policy meetings.
    *   Staff would welcome input and guidance from the PPSC (in this case) and 
the Council on this proposed meeting.  However, the decision to provide ICANN 
support is not a unilateral one of a work team (as suggested), but a question 
of travel funding for Staff to consider.  In the near future, Staff will be 
soliciting Council input on ICANN's budget and operating plan for the next 
fiscal year as done in the past, but with increased emphasis on estimating 
specific SO funding needs such as this one earlier on in the planning cycle.  
We do want to encourage the Council to play a more active role in forecasting 
budgetary and resource requirements on an annual basis, and to help ICANN use 
fees wisely and maintain the appropriate budget levels.
    *   ICANN agreed to provide some travel support for a limited number of PDP 
Work Team participants to enable significant progress to be made on developing 
a new policy development process.  I think there is a strong case to be made 
that this is a unique and compelling need and that important goals can be met.  
Objectives and a suggested agenda have been provided for this meeting.
    *
    *   Staff does not view this meeting as a new "emphasis on face-to-face 
meetings," but rather a one-off event. Teleconferences, email lists and 
webcasts will continue to be the  basis for ICANN's policy development 
activities.

Thanks, again, for the input on this important matter.

Denise

Denise Michel
ICANN Vice President
Policy Development


________________________________

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




------ End of Forwarded Message