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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I do believe you misrepresented the full consensus on the team as I did not 
participate in such consensus.

I also think you have distorted the NCSG reasoning very prejudicially.

I also do not believe you even asked for a PPSC consensus call.  

a.

On 10 Dec 2009, at 00:17, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 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  / 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>