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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Wolf.  I respectfully disagree that this 'framing' work is a higher
priority that ongoing policy development work, especially including the
RAP-WG and the RAA work which have a lot of volunteers and would surely
benefit from F2F interaction.  We have already made massive changes to the
Bylaws, and in my opinion those can be allowed to play out awhile, under the
current PDP rules (as unenforced as they typically are), as that experience
may well lead to better PDP rulemaking in the fairly near future, once
existing WTs are allowed priority to finish their work, with all of the
limited resources available to the entire GNSO policy process.

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



Liz,

That fully meets my expectation, too. I was also uncertain about the
procedure which body should decide upon. Since relevant pro and con
arguments have lengthly been exchanged and lay on the table in written
form I think it's time to finish this story now by a council decision on
a related motion. Chuck, if you agree, I'll draft that motion and will
send it to you tomorrow (after an ISPCP call) for further appropriate
discussion on council level. In case the council will discuss and take a
vote I would suggest to put it on the agenda as a dedicated item, not
under AOB.

Mike: With great respect to your opinion I must say that I can't see any
intention or indication to qualify any WT's work in terms of more or
less importance. It may be just the same signal to be sent when we'll
set council's priorities - which btw is already an ongoing task. In this
respect I would allocate a higher priority rank to all "framing" work
the results of which shall be to some extent serve as a prerequisite for
other important work. To my understanding the PDP gives a basic frame
for council work. That's why it is given special reference to in the
bylaws.
I would appreciate very much if you could join my suggestion on dealing
with the matter next council meeting and bring up your arguments to this
occasion.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich 





Dear everyone

Whilst the commentary on who should go, why, for how much and what for  
is interesting, where is the decision about whether the F2F meeting is  
actually  happening or not?  Valuable work time is being wasted when  
this is a simple administrative matter to be decided by the Council (I  
think it's the Council?)

The proposed dates are rapidly approaching and people either need to  
allocate the time to those proposed days or not.

Who makes that decision and when will it be made?   Somebody, please  
make an appropriate motion, vote on it and get done with it.

Liz
On 10 Dec 2009, at 07:21, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

>
> 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>
>
>
>
>
>