Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp]

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On reading it, and I have not listened to the recording of the meeting yet, I 
object to the disparity in treatment between the two non contracted SG groups.  

There should be the same number of representatives from each of the Stakeholder 
groups.    As written this prevents the council members appointed from the 
Board, or other member the NCSG executive committee wishes to send, from 
participating.  This continues a disparity in the treatment between 
non-commercial and commercial that was to have been eliminated by the 
restructuring.

It should either be 1 from each SG or 3 from each.  The number of 
constituencies should be irrelevant at this point.

I will be checking with the NCSG Executive Committee, so at this point this is 
a personal point of view, but as Chair of the NCSF Executive Committee I wish 
to lodge a provisional protest.

I also object that this request to the Council does not include specific 
information on the staff that the ICANN Policy groups plans to send.  I 
understand their very active participation in this work team, and think that 
council members should know how many staff members will be sent since that is 
part of the expense that needs to be accounted for.

I have heard other details about discussions during the meeting that concern 
me, especially that affect to the need to include new blood and diversity in 
this group, but will comment on those specifically once I have listened to the 
recording.

a.



On 5 Dec 2009, at 07:43, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Dear PPSC members,
>  
> Please find enclosed a draft request for a PDP Work Team face to face meeting 
> in January 2010 setting for the rationale for needing such a working session. 
>  This draft was discussed by the PDP Work Team this past Thursday.  It is our 
> intent to send this to the GNSO Council by no later than December 9th so that 
> it can be discussed at the GNSO Council meeting.
>  
> As this is a first, we wanted to make sure that the entire PPSC was made 
> aware of the request prior to sending it to the Council.  Unless there is a 
> strong objection by the PPSC as a whole, this will be sent to the Council 
> next Wednesday.  I have also included Chuck Gomes on this note so that he is 
> aware that this will be coming.
>  
> I know there are a few on the Council that have expressed reservations about 
> the face to face and that is the reason this document has been put together – 
> namely, to explain our rationale.
>  
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> 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.
>  
> <Request for a PDP WT Face to Face meeting - updated 3 December 2009.doc>