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

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

Which are reflected in the document that will be sent to the Council.  

Mike - Sorry we missed you again on the call today.  It would really help the 
group for you to be present when these discussions take place.

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: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:28 PM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face 
to Face Meeting

I would add "with clearly stated and quantifiable objectives" for the F2F 
meeting...

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 10 déc. 2009 à 15:55, Avri Doria a écrit :

> 
> Hi,
> 
> There may be positive value if the face to face meeting is done properly with 
> equal and balanced representation in a reasonably International location.
> Otherwise  there is negative value.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 10 Dec 2009, at 13:50, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> 
>> Avri,
>> 
>> Thanks for this and I will respond more fully today.  But just so I 
>> understand the complete picture.  Putting aside the questions of funding, 
>> number of reps, etc, do you believe there is value in a face to face meeting 
>> and do you agree with the rationale.  On the last call, Alex did agree that 
>> this subject was important and did believe there was value in a face to face 
>> with all of the caveats above.
>> 
>> Mike is making an argument that there is little value to such a meeting and 
>> I would like the ncsg view on that.
>> 
>> Once we determine there is value, which I believe there has already been a 
>> consensus opinion on, then we can and should address the other issues.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
>> Vice President, Law & Policy
>> NeuStar, Inc.
>> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
>> To: Neuman, Jeff
>> Cc: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>; PPSC 
>> <gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thu Dec 10 06:40:36 2009
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team 
>> Face to Face Meeting
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Jeff,
>> 
>> 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 sent.
>> 
>> - 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. 
>> Specifically:
>> -- 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 th!
> e 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 (http://www.doodle.com/u6ta33ik4r5mk52g)
>> 
>> 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 PDP-WT.
>> 
>> 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 
>> consensus.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
>> On 10 Dec 2009, at 00:59, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>> 
>>> Avri,
>>> 
>>> 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 corrected?
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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>
>>> Sent: Wed Dec 09 18:52:34 2009
>>> 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_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 !
> 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 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 !
> 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>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>