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

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

The PPSC has been consulted.  They have had the request since December 5th and 
there have been no comments from any member of the PPSC that is not also a 
member of the PDP WT.

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: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 11:39 AM
To: Gomes,Chuck
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx; Zahid Jamil; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting

Chuck,

I think Mike's point about the PDP-WT's request first being evaluated by
the PPSC is correct. The PDP-WT was formed by the PPSC, not the Council.
If the PPSC has not been consulted then I agree that it should be
consulted before the Council take any action on this. The timing of the
request in relation to the actual F2F should not be used as an excuse to
try to hurry this along. If approved, the WT can meet in February if
January doesn't work out.

The PDP-WT has had considerable time to make the request considering
when it first came up (before Seoul). It appears to me the last three or
so conference calls have focused on it. In fact, if they'd spent their
time actually dealing with charter issues instead of debating the F2F
issue there may not be a need for a F2F.

As you said yourself, "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." And, "there are no provisions in any of the documents
that govern Council operation that provide procedures for Council action
on issues like this." So I don't think it is wise for Council to rush to
a vote on this.


Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face
Meeting
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, December 11, 2009 9:40 am
To: <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>,
"Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Please note my responses below Mike.  Please understand that my comments
should not be interpreted to mean that I support or oppose the request. 
That is a decision for the whole Council to make and the reason it is
being added to the agenda is so that the Council can consider the pros
and cons.  I plan to participate in that discussion in our meeting and
will voice my personal opinions and those of the RySG in that regard
then.  
 
Chuck

From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:29 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] FW: Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face
Meeting



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.
[Gomes, Chuck] To what "right" are you referring? It is correct that we
have had a consistent practice of honoring a request by any constituency
if they needed more time to consider an issue.  I support that practice
if such a request is coming from a Stakeholder Group and I think even if
it comes from a constituency within a SG, so I personally would like to
request from you Mike and Zahid as Councilors from the BC, that you
would both confirm that the BC supports your request for delay.  It is
my understanding that the BC has an Executive Committee, so if it is not
possible to confirm this with the full BC membership, I am sure that
your executive committee could act on my request between now and 17
December.  It has also been a practice of the Council to consider
exceptions to procedures and practices in cases where time sensitivity
is a factor.  In our meeting on Thursday we will debate whether an
exception is warranted in this case as well as whether the work of this
WT is a high priority.  Please note Mike that a request to delay a
decision on this means that a F2F meeting, if supported, could likely
not happen in January as proposed by the WT and that a delay until
February could possibly reduce the progress made on the PDP work before
the Nairobi meeting.  Finally, considering the fact that you are a
member of the PDP WT on behalf of the BC, am I correct in assuming that
you have kept the BC membership informed of the issues the WT has
considered including the possibility of a F2F meeting on an ongoing
basis?  If so, am I correct in assuming that you have already obtained
feedback from BC members on this issue?  It seems to me that the BC has
had considerable time to discuss this issue, so to invoke a Council
practice may not be well justified in your case.
 
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.
[Gomes, Chuck] I understand that you personally oppose this request but
I encourage you not to use process and procedural arguments to advance
your personal agenda.  If this is truly a BC issue, fine, but I again I
ask you and Zahid to please confirm that the BC membership and/or
executive committee supports your request for a delay. 
 
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.
[Gomes, Chuck] No one to my knowledge has called this an emergency but
there are clearly those who believe it is a higher priority than you do.
The goal in our upcoming meeting is to get a sense of where the full
Council is on this. And I look forward to a lively discussion on the
pros and cons. 
 
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
(415) 738-8087
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/) and (ii) 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.  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 /
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.