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

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am weighing in as a former member of Council to just state that routinely, in 
earlier Councils, there was an invitation to the chair of a WG, to join the 
Council for discussion /questions, etc.  I was honored to be invited to brief 
Council when I chaired two Task Forces, in that role, and expected to fully 
represent the consensus of the TF, not my personal views. I think it was 
helpful to Council deliberations. There were members of the Council, although 
in those days, not many, on the TF, but they were in agreement to defer to have 
a TF report. 
I hope that the policy council continues this tradition. When a councilor is in 
their role as a councilor, they shouldn't be expected to speak for a different 
group, where they are a participant, but not able to speak for the full group.
I hope that Council accepts Jeff's offer, as chair of the WG. I don't have 
posting privileges, so am copying the two BC Councilors. This is a personal and 
individual perspective and one that is based on several years as a Councilor, 
but a majority of years of involvement as merely a member of the stakeholders 
of ICANN, and an active participant in various WGs and TFs.  
Marilyn Cade


Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] RE: AW: [ncsg-ec] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] 
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 14:33:42 -0500
From: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
To: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; 
liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx; avri@xxxxxxx; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
CC: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx












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








What time is the meeting?  I would be happy to listen in.  I
know there are some sensitive issues that staff may want me to respond to as
opposed to them, but I will let them weigh in.

 



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.

 



 





From:
owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes,
Chuck

Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:17 PM

To: Marika Konings; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; Liz Gasster; Avri Doria; 
Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx

Cc: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx

Subject: [gnso-ppsc] RE: AW: [ncsg-ec] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] 





 

In anticipation of the request being added to the Council agenda
for 17 Dec., would there possibly be value in having Jeff as chair of the PPSC
and/or WT participate in the Council meeting or is it reasonable to expect that
Wolf, Marika and any others on the WT and/or PPSC and the Council could talk to
this satisfactorily?

 

Chuck



 







From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]


Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:36 PM

To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; Liz Gasster; Avri Doria; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx

Cc: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck

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

Wolf-Ulrich,
in response to your questions:



- the basic request for the F2F meeting


 The
     request for the face-to-face meeting was shared with the PPSC and should
     be forwarded by Jeff to the GNSO Council shortly according to his message
     on 5 December (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/msg00117.html)


-
background information on budget effect (e.g. average cost per funded
participant)


 based
     on previous experience, the average expected costs per participant is
     estimated to be between $ 1,500 – 2,500. This estimate includes travel,
     hotel, food and meeting facilities. Please note that this is a rough
     estimate.


-
list of items where council recommendations are expected (GAC rep., SG reps
 etc.)


 This
     is for the Council to discuss and decide upon


-
information on potential F2F meeting requests from other WTs


 As
     far as I am aware, no other requests for F2F meetings have been made or
     are in the pipeline




With best regards,



Marika 



On 08/12/09 10:00, "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx"
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





Thanks, Liz, for this which I fully share.

Nobody participating within this work team has to take responsibility that
others don't or do it part-time only. The discrepancy between the number of
members nominated to a WT and the number of active members is inherent to any
WT.

As I'm in favour of holding an F2F meeting as soon as possible I'd like to push
this forward that a positive decision could be taken by the PPSC and the
council in principle. Details like whether a GAC representative should be
funded should not be used as key decision factors but could be recommended by
the council. So what I would appreciate being prepared by staff for the council
discussion on Dec 17 is:

- the basic request for the F2F meeting

- background information on budget effect (e.g. average cost per funded
participant)

- list of items where council recommendations are expected (GAC rep., SG reps
 etc.)

- information on potential F2F meeting requests from other WTs



I really hope that this discussion will encourage and enable more community
members to participate actively. But it shouldn't paralyse the work progress.
Regarding the work on a new and modernized PDP the alternative would be just
staying with the old (existing) one. I don't think that's the best solution.



Best regards



Wolf-Ulrich







-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Von: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx]
Im Auftrag von Liz Gasster

Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Dezember 2009 03:07

An: Avri Doria; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx

Cc: PPSC; Chuck Gomes

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





All,



I'd like to try to address some of the points that have been raised about the
proposed face-to-face meeting.



Regarding the role of the GNSO Council:



*       Staff is not "negating the Council
responsibilities for oversight of the process." Our only point is that the
question of travel funding falls under staff's remit as it currently stands. As
indicated, we do want to encourage the Council to play a more active role in
forecasting budgetary and resource requirements on an annual basis, and to help
ICANN use fees wisely and maintain the appropriate budget levels.



*       As Jeff noted, the PPSC is considering
the request now, following its review (deadline of 9 December), the Council
will be asked to provide its view.



Regarding the F2F location, Work Team participation and who should attend:



*       We suggested DC/east coast US because it
seemed like the most central/least amount of travel for the largest number of
participants and the most cost-effective location. The ICANN staff who have
been supporting this WT (Marika, Margie and me) are planning to participate.



*       The GAC does not have an official
representative to this group. Bertrand de La Chappelle had been participating
as an individual but he has not been active for awhile now. The GAC could
decide to send an official rep to this meeting.



*       It is erroneous to say that participants
have been "excluded" or that the WT is driven by a particular
"region." While the WT was constituted before Stakeholder Groups were
created, there have been no restrictions or guidelines as to how many
representatives each Constituency (or any interested group) could or should
have.  In any event, SG input will continue to be encouraged and both the
NCSG and SG are, of course, represented on the Council and will be addressing
the new PDP directly there.



*       It is great to see that individuals from
the NCUC (and other new faces) are now keen to participate and they are
encouraged to become involved NOW in the WT's substantive efforts on-line and
on conference calls, and not wait until a face-to-face meeting.  That
said, 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.



*       In addition, this is an open and lengthy
process with many opportunities for anyone to participate and offer ideas.
 This WT's initial recommendations will be publicly available for comment
and will be considered by the PPSC; the PPSC's recommendations on a new PDP
will be publicly available for comment and will be considered by the GNSO
Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies and the Council; the Council's proposed new
PDP will be publicly available for comment and will then be considered by the
Board.



Regarding the AoC:



*       The remit of this specific WT stems from
the Board-approved GNSO Improvements Report. One of the PDP WT's objectives has
been, and continues to be, to encourage more transparency, accountability, and
community deliberation and involvement.  Ultimately, a community review
team will be tasked to assess ICANN's efforts as called for in the AoC; this
effort complements, but is independent from, the GNSO's Improvement Process,
which needs to be completed expeditiously.



Thanks, Liz









-----Original Message-----

From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria

Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 2:18 AM

To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx

Cc: PPSC; Chuck Gomes

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









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>

>>

>>

>