Re: [ncsg-ec] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp]

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

PS.  How come no support for a GAC representative at the F2F.  In respect to 
meeting AoC obligations, this seems a definite oversight and a risk.


On 6 Dec 2009, at 11:00, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi Jeff,
> 
> Thanks for getting back to me with such a detailed note.
> 
> I have at this point listened to the recording of the phone call, and have a 
> few points to make.
> 
> First I totally agree with those who believe this is a GNSO council issue, 
> though of course only after the PPSC has passed it on..  Even if the work was 
> mandated by the Board, it was mandated that the GNSO do the work.  I would 
> also point out that the PPSC was chartered by the GNSO Council and as such 
> its Working Teams are also governed by that charter.  The GNSO council, in 
> its new form is mandated to management of the policy development process.  
> This means the whole process, including ICANN Policy Staff activities taken 
> in support of that Policy Process.  For the ICANN Policy Staff to continue 
> negating and overriding the  responsibilities of the council is unacceptable 
> - and a serious problem, one that is much greater then that of a PDP face to 
> face meeting.
> 
> Second in terms of deciding who should participate.  We must remember that 
> this is being done in light of the Affirmation of Commitment 9.1 
> "(e) assessing the policy development process to facilitate enhanced cross 
> community deliberations, and effective and timely policy development."
> That means this cannot be 'just about bringing this work to closure" .  There 
> needs to be a review to insure that the work done to date meets this new 
> criteria.  We need to insure that nay new PDPD process meets the requirements 
> of the Aoc. The requirements of "Ensuring accountability, transparency and 
> the interests of global Internet users" requires that:
> 
> - there be global diversity in the participants - and if certain regions have 
> not been included in the past, they need to be added now.  the fact that 
> certain participants have been excluded in the past must not be used to 
> restrict them in the present and the future.  The fact that this is a self 
> selected group of North Americans is _not_ a good thing and does not seems 
> encouraging in light of the AoC.  One can see this is being done for cost 
> efficiency, but holding it in DC because that is where the North Americans 
> are, is not really valid reasoning for an ICANN that wishes to show its 
> international pedigree.  This is especially the case in the light of 
> difficulty with visas into the US,  e.g. the NCSG has one possible Latin 
> American participant, one who had attended several PDP-WT meetings, who 
> withdrew from consideration because just getting a visa to the US can be an 
> obnoxious several day job.
> 
> - there needs to be full and equal participation of all relevant interests.  
> At a minimum this means that all SGs[*] needs to be offered the chance to be 
> adequately represented, even if it means that some new participants have to 
> come up to speed.  SGs MUST be treated equally.  It is fine if those in the 
> Contracted Parties House do not wish to send a full compliment at ICANN 
> expense.  But their willingness not to do so should not be used as a reason 
> to deny participation to the non-commercial participants who have no 
> resources of their own to enable participation.  The fact that the Commercial 
> SG group composed of  those who often have access to financial resources are 
> given 3 paid seats, while the Non-Commercial SG who have no resources are 
> only given 1 seat is completely unacceptable.  To characterize this as mere 
> bickering is cruel and unfair - it needs to be recognized as a matter of 
> equality and parity that are essential ingredients in insuring the interests 
> of global Internet users.  In pragmatic sense, it is important to remember 
> that the changes being proposed by this group will need to reach a certain 
> threshhold of votes in the council before being passed onto the Board.  Is it 
> reasonable to consider that those who have been excluded from the process 
> will be able to approve of the process as having been fair when they were not 
> adequately represented?
> 
> - there be new people looking at the work done to date, since it is well 
> known that people who have been immersed in the details for a long time, are 
> often incapable to considering an issue in the light of new requirements.
> 
> Yes any new participants need to review all of the material and I beleive it 
> is a totally legitimate expectation that everyone would need to review all of 
> the previous work and I beleive that everyone can, and should be, be trusted 
> to do so.  Yes, it should not be a ground zero discussion, but we have a new 
> council, with a new mandate, and if we expect it to be able to sign off on 
> the process having been run will full accountability, transparency and the 
> interests of global Internet users we better be sure that all voices who want 
> to participate can fully do so.
> 
> Mention was made that remote participation facilities would be provided.  As 
> anyone who has attempted to participate in a face to face meeting remotely 
> knows, this is not a equal opportunity participation.  Yes you can almost 
> listen and might be able to make a occasional comment, but  contrary to what 
> Marika says, participation in the face to face meeting does equal 
> participation and one can never make up for having missed a face to face 
> meting.  looked at another way, if face to face participation is not 
> critical, then why have the face to face meeting at all.
> 
> To limit the meeting to so called 'active' members is to limit it to the old 
> and not to take into account that there has been a large change in the GNSO 
> and council in the last few months.  We have 3 new Board appointed members of 
> the council in the NCSG, I find it unreasonable that no account has been 
> taken of having at least one of them attend, or to having them suggest a 
> proxy for their concerns.
> 
> In terms of budget, the fact that the GNSO council has not been allowed to 
> look at budgets in the past is no reason not to give the new GNSO Council 
> responsible for management the ability to review the budget.
> 
> As things currently stand, in terms of this face to face meeting, I will make 
> my personal recommendation that the NCSG PPSC representative object to this 
> plan, and that if the plan is passed on to the GNSO Council, the NCSG council 
> members insist on a vote on this plan and that they then vote against this 
> plan as it stands for the following reasons:
> 
> - inequality of  representation
> - insufficient details on how much of it will cost for the ICANN Policy Staff 
> to participate (how many, travel costs and whether contract or not)
> - no detailed budget
> 
> I understand that not having the f2f may make it hard to hit a timeline, but 
> we must be careful to do the right thing and not just keep the trains running 
> on time.
> 
> a.
> 
> [*] this must be done by SG not by constituencies.  For someone to ague that 
> there is only one constituency in the NCSG when there have been 3 appointed 
> board council members to the NCSG and the NCSG keeps expanding in size is 
> just plan wrong and prejudicial. 
> 
> 
> Note: On the issue of the Policy Staff sending confidential reports to the 
> Board - as I have long advocated - this practice MUST be stopped, especially 
> in respect to the PDP process.
> 
> 
> On 5 Dec 2009, at 16:57, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Avri for your note and I do encourage you to listen to the
>> recording.  I would like to send to you the same answer I sent to Robin
>> earlier in the week.  As chair, it is my responsibility to make sure
>> that all viewpoints are heard and reflected in the ultimate report.  I
>> need to do that regardless of the actual number of people that attend
>> meetings or calls.  In other words, if the registrars have 2 people on a
>> call, but the NCSG only has one, I cannot give more weight to the
>> registrars than to the NCSG simply because they have more people.
>> Similarly, the fact that there is only one person from the NCSG that
>> attends a meeting does not mean that its voice is heard less.  We need
>> to stop focusing on the issue of quantity, but rather quality.  It is
>> the same reason why the RySG and RrSG accepted less members on the STI
>> than the NCSG and CSG have on that committee. The RrSG and RySG have 2
>> members, while the other 2 SGs have 3 members each.   The registries and
>> registrars agreed early on that as long as our voice was being heard
>> (which we believe it is), then we would not focus on the number of reps.
>> 
>> With respect to ICANN policy staff, I will let ICANN staff address.
>> 
>> Finally, with respect to new blood, I believe that is an issue for all
>> working groups as they are COMMENCING their work.  As we are trying to
>> wrap up our work, I am not sure the face to face meeting (intended to
>> finalize a report) is the place to make the call for diversity.  The
>> group discussed this issue at length and felt that the persons being
>> funded should be ones that either (i) active in the group or (ii) are
>> dedicated to the remain active in the group for the reminder of its life
>> span.  I am paraphrasing, but you should listen to the recording.  We do
>> not believe someone should be funded to attend the face to face if they
>> have rarely if ever been on a WT call or meeting or have never filled
>> out any of the surveys.  Anyone and everyone is free to participate
>> remotely.
>> 
>> I hope that helps to understand some of our thinking.
>> 
>> Please let me know if you have any questions.  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 4:36 AM
>> To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: PPSC; Chuck Gomes
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] 
>> 
>> 
>> 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>
>> 
>> 
>