ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-ppsc] RE: [ncsg-ec] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp]
  • From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 18:07:02 -0800


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 

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 
> - 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>

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy