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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The BC will exercise its right to push any vote on this issue to the next
meeting in Jaunuary, as we have not begun to discuss the issue and therefore
have not come to a consensus position.  The issue certainly does not warrant
emergency consideration in the next 7 days, particularly given all of the
other issues we are considering these days.

 

Also, the PDP-WT should not be making requests of Council, especially
requests that do not have consensus even of the WT.  The PPSC should be
evaluating this request now, and should make any recommendation to Council,
if any.  This was the process that was agrees when we formed the PPSC and
the WTs, and there is no justification to ignore it now, simply because a WT
Chair, some of its members, and a few ICANN Staff apparently think this is
an emergency to schedule a F2F meeting.

 

If Council is going to act on this request, it must be in the context of our
overall prioritization work, and not on an ?emergency? basis as appears to
be requested.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

 
<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer
=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> (415) 738-8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 6:02 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
Importance: High

 

Here is a request from Jeff Neuman, chair of the PDP WT and chair of the
PPSC, for a face-to-face (F2F) WT meeting including ICANN travel funding
support.  Please ignore a previous version of Jeff's message distributed on
the Council list because it was sent to the Council list prematurely.

 

Please note that a detailed request is provided in the attached file.  In
preparation for our Council meeting on 17 December, please review Jeff's
message below and the attached file for discussion and possible action by
the Council in that meeting.  And please forward this message with the
attachment to your respective groups immediately so that they can do the
same and provide Councilors input before 17 December and thereby provide you
any direction they have on this issue.

 

Note that this request was received after the required deadline in the
Council Operation Procedures so we will have to decide whether to make an
exception to the Procedures before taking any action.  The reason for
considering this exception is because the request is for a F2F meeting in
January and to delay a decision until our 7 January meeting would be too
late to allow adequate time for travel plans and other arrangements.  Also
note that there are no provisions in any of the documents that govern
Council operation that provide procedures for Council action on issues like
this; we quite possibly will need to consider that topic sometime in the
future.  At present though, I believe it is important for the Council to be
involved in this decision because already budgeted GNSO Improvement funds
used for this request would not be available for funding of other such
requests in the future or for other GNSO improvement implementation actions
in this fiscal year.  Staff will provide more details on funds available.

 

Jeff Neuman has been invited to participate in the 17 December Council
meeting so he can be available to answer questions.

 

In the meantime, I encourage discussion on the Council list.

 

Chuck

 

  _____  

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:47 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting

Chuck,

 

Please find enclosed a request by the PDP Work Team for a face to face
meeting in January 2010 which sets forth the rationale for needing such a
working session.  This draft  was discussed by the PDP Work Team on e-mail
and during two conference calls.  Although there was not a consensus on the
request for such a face to face meeting within the PDP WT, there was strong
support from the RySG, the IP Constituency, the ISP Constituency, ALAC and
one of the two Business Constituency representatives  for the reasons stated
within the attached document.  The Registrar representatives and 1 of the
business constituency representatives were not in favor of the request.  The
NCSG generally believes that there could be a positive benefit from a face
to face meeting with the caveats expressed below.  The PDP WT offers no
opinion in this document on the general role of face to face meetings, the
Council?s role in approving or supporting those face to face meetings, etc.,
but rather focuses 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 a
number of e-mails on various mailing lists on this topic.  The discussions
are primarily archived on two lists:  (i) the PPSC list (
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/>
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/) and (ii) the PDP-WT list (the PDP
WT list -  <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/>
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>
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.
That is a separate issue that I plan on addressing in the next few weeks.  

 

The NCSG arguments can be found in full at
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/msg00241.html.  To summarize, the
NCSG has argued that there is not a consensus of the group in support of (i)
the rationale for the Face to Face meeting, (ii) the appropriateness of
holding such a meeting in the United States, and (iii) the resolution of how
many people from each SG or constituency should be funded by ICANN to
attend.   The NCSG believes that there should be parity of representatives
funded to attend face to face meetings by Stakeholder Group (as opposed to
by Constituency).  Finally, there was a question raised as to who makes the
decisions on holding and funding these types of meetings (the Work Team, the
Steering Committee, the GNSO Council, ICANN Policy Staff, etc.).

 

Whether or not we have a face to face meeting, each member of the PDP WT
with the exception of one business constituency representative believes that
the work of the PDP-WT is essential and should be of the highest priority of
the GNSO Council and community.  The work being performed in the WT was work
directed to be done ultimately by the Board Governance Committee as part of
the GNSO Improvements Process.  The finalization of the Policy Development
Process will guide how all future policy is made under the new structure and
as such should be resolved as quickly as possible.  The review of the PDP is
incredibly broad and complex.  There are a number of difficult issues that
we have been, and continue to be, tackling in order to come up with a
process acceptable to the global Internet community.  The core group of
participants (including ICANN policy staff) are diverse, knowledgeable,
passionate and highly respected members of the community and are fully
committed to seeing this process through to the end regardless of having
this face to face meeting.  I have the utmost respect for each member of the
team.

 

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 /
<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx> jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  /
<http://www.neustar.biz/> 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.