<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ncsg-ec] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp]
- To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ncsg-ec] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp]
- From: Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:15:26 +0000
Hello Avri
You've raised some very valid points and I wanted to address a few of
them.
The first is your point about encouraging new participation (from
outside the US). As an Asia Pacific person I cannot stress that
enough as we see too little diversity from the regions. The bigger
question is though WHY would one participate. The GNSO has not, and
the new Council should, really work out why anyone ought to be
bothered. I say that carefully because I find it all fascinating but
what is the key motivator for anyone to participate in any of the work
of with the Working Groups or the Council itself? A clearly
articulated statement of "why the work is important" makes it much
easier for anyone to justify the time needed to do the work.
The second is your point about location of F2F meetings. Holding them
in Washington DC further skews the demographic of those who
participate and radically disadvantages those who cannot, for the
reasons you've set out, easily get into the US (and I am one of those
even though I carry an Australian passport). Not only that, the
expense of being in the US also radically disadvantages those from
developing economies. If travel funding is sought to support meetings
then that ought to be coupled with a Global Partnerships initiative
that links those efforts with the main work of the GNSO. We must have
a broad church of participants and every opportunity to hold meetings
in different locations ought to be sought.
With respect to your point about three paid business representatives
-- I would urge us to be very careful about assuming that one group or
the other is more "deserving" of funds. I fund all my ICANN related
calls/trips/expenses for policy development work. I, and many others
who are members of the Commercial Stakeholder's Group, are not well
resourced and continue to outlay large amounts of time (which is worth
money) for this work.
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.
This point is critical. If this continues to happen, volunteers will
stop volunteering. Why have a bottom up consensus based policy
development process when staff can completely override (as they have
done on numerous occasions) the results of consensus.
Finally, this PDP work is long overdue, is critical to the legitimacy
of the organisation and must be completed immediately. How that gets
done is important but not quite so important as actually doing it!
Liz
On 6 Dec 2009, at 10:17, Avri Doria wrote:
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>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|