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

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am delighted to hear that the practice continues, Chuck. 
Marilyn 



Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] RE: AW: [ncsg-ec] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp]
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:47:09 -0500
From: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx; jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxx; marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx; 
knobenw@xxxxxxxxxx; liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx; avri@xxxxxxx; 
gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx




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





Thanks Marilyn. There is no intention on my part to change 
this practice.  We had already invited one non-council chair and I have 
asked Glen to do the same with Jeff in this case.
 
Chuck


  
  
  From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
  
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 10:05 PM
To: 
  jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck; Marika Konings; Wolf Knoben; Liz 
  Gasster; Avri Doria; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx; Mike Rodenbaugh; Zahid 
  Jamil
Cc: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] RE: 
  AW: [ncsg-ec] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp]


  
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


  

  

  
  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>
>>
>>
>