Re: [gnso-ppsc] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
- To: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:40:36 +0100
On 10 Dec 2009, at 10:56, Avri Doria wrote:
> And Chuck who was the alternate is not the council chair
Not not, but now!
If this is going to be attached to the motion going to the council as an
opposing opinion, please use the corrected version below.
Thank you for the opportunity to give some more detail.
I made 3 points, which I will cover separately.
1. That you did not have the consensus in the PDP group.
While I think you could possibly claim that you have some degree of rough
consensus, there are those of us, myself included, who objected to various
aspects of the plan.
- Not everyone was convinced of the need for the F2F. Personally I feel that if
the volunteer corps and the staff had spent as much time focusing on the issues
as they spent planning and talking about the trip we would be a lot further
along. Of late, the trip has become the major topic of discussion in the WT.
- There were issues of the appropriateness of holding the meeting in the US.
Considering the visa hell, especially time, expenses and denigration, some
people have to go through to get visas into the US, this does not do much to
represent ICANN's new more international face.
- There were issues of how many people from each SG or constituency should be
- There were disagreements to what extent the Policy Staff answers to the PPSC
and Council in deciding on these trips and the details of the trip - with the
Policy Staff stating that these things were in their purview - not the
councils. It is still uncertain whether the Policy Staff is willing to abide
by the decision of the council on this issue. It is still uncertain that the
council is being given the full details of the full budget for the trip.
Finally on this point, while I remember a fair amount of conversation about the
trip, I do not recall a consensus call of the PDP Work Team members.
2. That you distorted the NCSG reasoning very prejudicially
When I say you distorted, I do not claim that any particular statement you made
was false. I am sure all of the things you mention can be found in the record.
But they way in which you covered them minimized some of the important aspects
of the argument while emphasizing others in a minimizing way. I also think you
left out some of the counter arguments, only giving your, and perhaps the
majority, arguments for the positions taken.
- Yes several of us from the NCSG argued that the distribution should be the
same for all SGs. We also agreed that no SG needed to send the full number
possible, that was their choice. So if 3 was the proper number for one SG,
then it would only be fair and balanced to offer other SGs the same
opportunity. There was no obligation, specifically mentioned, that they would
need to utilize the 3 paid seats. Also, the issue was parity not the specific
number. If 3 is too many for everybody, then fewer, even down to 1 per SG
would still be parity. The issue was parity between the groups, not the number
of seats qua seats. When trying to reach decisions on something as major as
the new PDP process, full and equal opportunity of participation in a critical
meeting to resolve the remaining hard issues must be afforded equally across
the SGs. If it is too expensive to include full and equal representation,
then perhaps the meeting should be reconsidered.
- Another important point in the discussion is that we should be functioning
along SG lines in terms of apportioning seats in any trip. That is, that it no
longer made sense in the reorganized GNSO to apportion for SGs for 3 of them,
and Constituencies in the case of the CSG. All SGs are equal and should be
treated that way.
- A specific discussion was held on the importance of adding new people to the
mix at this point in the process. While you reiterated your arguments for why
adding new people was not a good idea, you left out the arguments for why it
was important to some of us.
-- The AOC has presented us with a new situation especially with regard to
clause' 9.1 Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global
Internet users' and clause '(e) assessing the policy development process to
facilitate enhanced cross community deliberations, and effective and timely
policy development.' The argument was that often it is necessary to add new
people to a mix in order to review a new set of requirements, as those who
have been laboring under the old set of requirements are not fully capable of
properly integrating new requirements - it is just human nature.
-- As someone pointed out, the majority of the members of the group were North
Americans. It only seems appropriate that this should cause the group to
desperately work to add people from other regions. While the final report did
include an NCSG representative from Africa, getting him on the list was like
pulling teeth - and I do appreciate the part you took as chair in making sure
he was added to the list. Here we had a new participant to the ICANN who was
initially and insistently told by Policy Staff that he should not come because
he was a newcomer to ICANN.
-- It was assumed that new people would not do their homework and read pervious
mailing list discussions or listen to recording of previous meetings. I think
this is slanderous, I think most new participants will do their homework and
when they don't it is obvious and the group can deal with those exceptions. I
would also be interested in knowing that all of those who are considered old
attendees because they were at half or fewer of the meetings have listened to
the recordings of all the meeting they missed. I assume they did, so why
assume the new people won't.
- You quote the Policy Staff's argument that attending the F2F does not
correspond to participation and that being excluded from a F2F does not
constitute being excluded from the process. Several of us disagreed with this
assumption, but these arguments were not represented. ICANN has been totally
incapable of offering reliable remote participation at a F2F meeting - not its
fault - it is a difficult thing to do on a global basis. A remote participant
may hear a bit of the conversation and may occasionally get a word in edgewise,
but cannot really participate. This is especially so when things get touchy
and people take a break to go off and huddle in smaller groups to come up with
the compromises. Also once a F2F has occurred, those who were not there and
have been effectively excluded from the nitty-gritty discussions are often told
"but we discussed this at length in the F2F and this is what we compromised on
- how can you reopen this issue now - didn't you read the transcript?" This is
not full and equal representation. Often a common mind set is established at a
F2F; this is a good thing for groups consensus, except that it leaves out those
who were not adequately represented. I ask again, if being at the F2F is not
critical for getting to consensus and everything decided at the F2F is still
open for further discussion and deliberation, why hold a F2F at all?
- The NCSG is not the NCUC of old, as it has 3 appointed Board Council members
in addition to continuing to grow faster then any other SG. No outreach was
made to these new members of the council who were picked to represent 3
communities that the Board felt were not adequately represented in our
community. It seems some effort should have been taken to bring these new
people into the process. And perhaps even a seat should have been offered to
them (or some of them or someone they designated). Of course had NCSG been
offered 3 seats instead of just 1, this might have been dealt with.
- That although a seat was made available for ALAC, certainly something the
NCSG agrees with, no provision was made for the GAC member who has added much
to some of the dialogue. I would note that he did respond to the doodle poll
3. That you had not gone to the PPSC.
First, yes it is true that I am no longer a member of the PPSC as I am no
longer an NCA and no longer council chair. However the alternate NCA, Olga
Cavalli, still is an NCA. And Chuck who was the alternate is now the council
chair - so both of my old hats are covered by others. I was not saying you did
not get my consensus in the PPSC but rather that you did not have it in the
Second if I remember correctly a consensus call in the PPSC was deemed to be a
polled consensus, not a passive consensus, where each of the members, or
alternate if primary was unavailable, was directly asked for a yes or now.
Sending message out on 5 Dec and declaring on 9 Dec that no one answered, is
not the PPSC process I remember.
You also say that some of the PPSC members are no longer part of council. This
is irrelevant. The PPSC was made up of constituency representatives not
necessarily Council members, except in the case of NCAs and the
chair/vice-chair. In all cases, I think that either the Primary or the
Secondary is still a community participant. It is true, that the PPSC should
have been reconstituted right after Seoul (and this may be true of the OSC as
well) with a call to all of the SGs for updating of representatives. As you are
chair of the PPSC, it seems that perhaps this was your responsibility.
This incident has brought out one issue in the conflict of interest between
the chair of a delegated body and the chair of the chartering body. You are
chair of both. In this case, I do believe your zeal to do what you saw as your
duty as PDP-WT chair has perhaps overridden your desire to be a strict
taskmaster in the PPSC. This is natural and not mentioned as a personal
criticism. But it is one of the reasons why I generally argue against the
chair of a chartering body, or even one of its members, being the chair of a
delegated body. In this case, since you had a PPSC alternate chair, it might
have been better for Jay Scott to have handled the PPSC responsibilities in
regard to the PDP-WT, with you still being in position to handle the chair
duties in regard to the WG-WT.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to respond to your declaration of
On 10 Dec 2009, at 00:59, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> I apologize if you believe that. I thought I was taking some of the language
> from your e-mails, but like I said, I am happy to be corrected. Can you
> please point out what has been distorted so I can make sure th record is
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Vice President, Law & Policy
> NeuStar, Inc.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wed Dec 09 18:52:34 2009
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
> 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.
> On 10 Dec 2009, at 00:17, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>> 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
>> 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 t!
hose 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 c!
onclusions so the public, the PPSC and the GNSO have a concrete initial draft
>> 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 i!
n 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>