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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike,

Let's keep the Council off the discussion list until the request gets to the 
Council please.  Most of us do not have posting rights so only your e-mails are 
making it across to the Council.

Thanks for your e-mail.  I know you have not been on the calls as of late, but 
I believe your claim that the Chair and policy staff are making unilateral 
decisions on the meeting, who gets funded, the rationale etc are off base.  
Listening to the recordings of the meetings will confirm that.  I fact your own 
fellow constituency rep seems to strongly disagree with you on the need and 
rationale for the meeting.  So that has personally been a source of confusion 
for me in trying to figure out the level of consensus.  Perhaps you can help 
clear that up.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
To: 'Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx' <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>; 'GNSO Council' 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu Dec 10 02:21:21 2009
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting


As a WT member, I have never believed this WT needs a F2F meeting, and find
the rationale in the document flimsy.  If there is a F2F meeting, Staff and
the WG Chair ought not be deciding who gets to go, or who is funded.

As a Councilor, I think this work is low priority compared to most of the
other ongoing efforts, and it should be up to Council to decide about these
matters, not Staff and/or a WG itself.  

By unilaterally deeming this work so important, Staff sends a strong signal
to all of the other WGs that their work is not as important.  I take strong
exception to that.  Perhaps the lack of volunteer interest in this group,
which in fact is a major reason for the proposed F2F meeting, is the
strongest indicator that this work is not a high priority for the community.
Many other WGs have much stronger participation, and all of them would like
to finish their work ASAP too, and surely a F2F meeting would assist in that
regard.

Sorry I missed that this had gone to the PPSC, since I am on the PPSC, and
the PPSC-PDP-WT, and there is a lot of cross-posting to those lists, it is
difficult to keep track.  We agreed at the outset that any call for
consensus of the PPSC would be clearly labeled as such, and Jeff's request
was not.  Also it was heavy-handed and misleading, insofar as the WT should
not be coming directly to Council, as that is what the PPSC is for.  The
required next step is for the PPSC to consider this request, and then make a
recommendation to Council, as that has not been done yet.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
(415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:22 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gomes, Chuck
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face
Meeting


Mike,

Can I drill down on your concern a little bit for clarification.  Is it
your concern as a Work Team member about the face to face meeting, or is
it in your capacity as a Councilor?  Do you not believe the work team
would benefit from a face to face meeting?  Do you agree or disagree
with the rationale for a meeting as reflected in the document?  Do you
agree or disagree with who gets funding as proposed in the request?

Or, as you have expressed, your concerns really are really related to
believing the GNSO Council has higher priorities, should consider
budget, the work is not important, etc.....

If your concerns are the ones in the first paragraph above, then please
let the group know because I believe those are the ones relevant to our
request to the Council.  If your concerns are related to the second
paragraph, I do not mean to belittle them, but the place for those
arguments are not in the request itself, but rather in your Council
deliberations on the request.  That is the reason I did not include them
in my note.  You have every right, and frankly should, bring up your
concerns to the council about priorities, funding in general for F2F
meetings, just like the registrars have done.  But I am not sure that
those concerns should be documented in the request itself. 

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks.

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 Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:37 PM
To: 'Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx'; 'GNSO Council'
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face
Meeting


I also did not and do not support this, and would have expected it to go
to
the PPSC before the Council, as that is the structure we deliberately
put in
place at the beginning of this process.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
(415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 3:53 PM
To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face
Meeting


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_commit
tee_
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 tho!
 se 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 con!
 clusions 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>