ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Liz Gasster" <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-ppsc] RE: AW: [ncsg-ec] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp]
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 14:17:28 -0500

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 


        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 

        - background information on budget effect (e.g. average cost per funded 

        *       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 

        - 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,
        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
                -----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]
                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 
                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 
                > 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 
                > 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 
                > 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 
                >> 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 
                >> 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 
                >> 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 
                >> 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 
                >> 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 
                >> 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 
                >> contracted SG groups.
                >> There should be the same number of representatives from each 
of the
                >> Stakeholder groups.    As written this prevents the council 
                >> appointed from the Board, or other member the NCSG executive 
                >> 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 
                >> 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 
                >> 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 
                >> 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: 
                >> / 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 
                >> 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 
                >> 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 
                >> 2009.doc>

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy