ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-ppsc-pdp]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting

  • To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
  • From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:17:17 -0500

Chuck,

 

Please find enclosed a request by the PDP Work Team for a 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.  There was a consensus within 
the PDP WT for such a face to face meeting for the reasons stated within the 
attached document and should address some of the concerns that we have seen on 
the GNSO Council list over the past several weeks.   We offer no opinion in 
this document on the general role of face to face meetings, the Council role in 
approving or supporting those face to face meetings, etc., but rather focus on 
our specific request.

 

The request was sent to the full Policy Process Steering Committee on December 
5, 2009, and although no comments were actually received from any person on the 
PPSC that was not already a member of the PDP WT, there were some comments from 
the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group with respect to who was eligible for 
funding from ICANN.  The discussions are archived on two lists (the PPSC list: 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/) and the PDP-WT list (the PDP WT list - 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/).   It should be noted that the 
PPSC as a whole has been inactive since the formation of the Work Teams early 
this year.  In fact some members of the PPSC listed at 
https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?policy_process_steering_committee_ppsc,
 may not be members of the Council or even active in the community.  

 

What follows is my brief summary of the issues raised to the best of my 
knowledge.  If I have misstated any of the arguments, I apologize in advance, 
and would be happy to be corrected.  Essentially, the PDP WT is recommending 
that 1 person be funded by ICANN staff from each constituency to attend the 
face to face.  The NCSG has argued that there should be the same number of 
representatives from each of the Stakeholder groups, which would mean that if 
ICANN provides funding for the three CSG constituencies to attend, then it 
should fund three reps from the NCSG, RySG and RrSG to attend as well (as 
opposed to the recommended 1 from the NCSG, RySG and RrSG).  The argument is 
that we have now reorganized into SGs and parity should be provided on an SG 
basis as opposed to constituency basis, and that the NCSG believes that this 
policy will exclude participation from the noncommercial users.  It is 
important to note that neither the Registries nor the Registrars have raised 
those arguments nor do they agree with the NCSG view.

 

ICANN staff has responded to the NCSG stating that participation in the PDP WT 
has never been exclusionary and that the Work Team has been open to anyone 
wanting to participate on-line, in conference calls, etc.  However, "enhancing 
participation on the WT does not equate to getting funded to attend a 
particular F2F meeting. This WT has always been open for anyone to participate 
and any group to be represented. Every effort has been made to try to get input 
and participation from all Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups, including by 
setting up surveys and requesting input on documents and discussions. It is 
troubling to see that only funded travel seems to drive a sudden need for 
'adequate representation' while this interest level seems to have been missing 
when it came to participation in the WT's previous 20 calls and 3 surveys.  
This F2F meeting is actually about genuine participation and about bringing the 
discussions of those 20 calls and 3 surveys together into conclusions so the 
public, the PPSC and the GNSO have a concrete initial draft to consider."

 

As Chair of the PDP WT, my personal view, for what it is worth, is more in line 
with ICANN staff's view.  I believe it is not the quantity of persons funded to 
attend the face to face that should matter, but rather the quality.  I need to 
do my job to make sure all view points are heard, discussed, and addressed 
whether it is one person making the argument or three.  The fact is that we 
have not had three reps from the NCSG participate on a regular basis in the WT 
and to have three reps for the sake of having an equal number of 
representatives to me does not make sense.  My view is that the most important 
reason for requesting this face to face meeting is to make progress on the work 
of the WT.  To introduce new players into the process now, after a year's worth 
of calls, meetings, surveys, reports, etc. at a face to face meeting for the 
first time may not be lend itself to a productive meeting.  On the other hand, 
if the ICANN staff and/or Council do decide that it is in the best interest of 
the Internet Community to allow all SGs (including Registries and Registrars by 
the way) to have 3 reps funded, then we will need to ensure that those 
participants are up to speed on the work, have read all of the materials, and 
that we do not recover old ground.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.  I would be happy to make myself 
available for the Council meeting to address any questions.

 

Thank you for your consideration of our request.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman , PDP Work Team Chair
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 <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>   / www.neustar.biz 
<http://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.

 

Attachment: Request for a PDP WT Face to Face meeting - updated 3 December 2009.doc
Description: Request for a PDP WT Face to Face meeting - updated 3 December 2009.doc



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy