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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

There may be positive value if the face to face meeting is done properly with 
equal and balanced representation in a reasonably International location.
Otherwise  there is negative value.

a.

On 10 Dec 2009, at 13:50, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> Thanks for this and I will respond more fully today.  But just so I 
> understand the complete picture.  Putting aside the questions of funding, 
> number of reps, etc, do you believe there is value in a face to face meeting 
> and do you agree with the rationale.  On the last call, Alex did agree that 
> this subject was important and did believe there was value in a face to face 
> with all of the caveats above.
> 
> Mike is making an argument that there is little value to such a meeting and I 
> would like the ncsg view on that.
> 
> Once we determine there is value, which I believe there has already been a 
> consensus opinion on, then we can and should address the other issues.
> 
> Thanks.
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Vice President, Law & Policy
> NeuStar, Inc.
> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> To: Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>; PPSC 
> <gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thu Dec 10 06:40:36 2009
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face 
> to Face Meeting
> 
> 
> On 10 Dec 2009, at 10:56, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> > And Chuck who was the alternate is not the council chair
> 
> Not not, but now!
> 
> If this is going to be attached to the motion going to the council as an 
> opposing opinion, please use the corrected version below.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> Thank you for the opportunity to give some more detail.
> 
> I made 3 points, which I will cover separately.
> 
> 1.  That you did not have the consensus in the PDP group.
> 
> While I think you could possibly claim that you have some degree of rough 
> consensus, there are those of us, myself included, who objected to various 
> aspects of the plan.
> 
> - Not everyone was convinced of the need for the F2F. Personally I feel that 
> if the volunteer corps and the staff had spent as much time focusing on the 
> issues as they spent planning and talking about the trip we would be a lot 
> further along.  Of late, the trip has become the major topic of discussion in 
> the WT.
> 
> - There were issues of the appropriateness of holding the meeting in the US.  
> Considering the visa hell, especially time, expenses and denigration, some 
> people have to go through to get visas into the US, this does not do much to 
> represent ICANN's new more international face.
> 
> - There were issues of how many people from each SG or constituency should be 
> sent.
> 
> - There were disagreements to what extent the Policy Staff answers to the 
> PPSC and Council in deciding on these trips and the details of the trip - 
> with the Policy Staff stating that these things were in their purview - not 
> the councils.  It is still uncertain whether the Policy Staff is willing to 
> abide by the decision of the council on this issue.  It is still uncertain 
> that the council is being given the full details of the full budget for the 
> trip.
> 
> Finally on this point, while I remember a fair amount of conversation about 
> the trip, I do not recall a consensus call of the PDP Work Team members.
> 
> 2. That you distorted the NCSG reasoning very prejudicially
> 
> When I say you distorted, I do not claim that any particular statement you 
> made was false.  I am sure all of the things you mention can be found in the 
> record.  But they way in which you covered them minimized some of the 
> important aspects of the argument while emphasizing others in a minimizing 
> way.  I also think you left out some of the counter arguments, only giving 
> your, and perhaps the majority, arguments for the positions taken.
> 
> - Yes several of us from the NCSG argued that the distribution should be the 
> same for all SGs.  We also agreed that no SG needed to send the full number 
> possible, that was their choice.  So if 3 was the proper number for one SG, 
> then it would only be fair and balanced to offer other SGs the same 
> opportunity.  There was no obligation, specifically mentioned, that they 
> would need to utilize the 3 paid seats.  Also, the issue was parity not the 
> specific number.  If 3 is too many for everybody, then fewer, even down to 1  
> per SG would still be parity.  The issue was parity between the groups, not 
> the number of seats qua seats.  When trying to reach decisions on something 
> as major as the new PDP process, full and equal opportunity of participation 
> in a critical meeting to resolve the remaining hard issues must be afforded 
> equally across the SGs.    If it is too expensive to include full and equal 
> representation, then perhaps the meeting should be reconsidered.
> 
> - Another important point in the discussion is that we should be functioning 
> along SG lines in terms of apportioning seats in any trip.  That is, that it 
> no longer made sense in the reorganized GNSO to apportion for SGs for 3 of 
> them, and Constituencies in the case of the CSG.  All SGs are equal and 
> should be treated that way.
> 
> - A specific discussion was held on the importance of adding new people to 
> the mix at this point in the process.  While you reiterated your arguments 
> for why adding new people was not a good idea, you left out the arguments for 
> why it was important to some of us. 
> Specifically:
> -- The AOC has presented us with a new situation especially with regard to 
> clause' 9.1 Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global 
> Internet users' and clause '(e) assessing the policy development process to 
> facilitate enhanced cross community deliberations, and effective and timely 
> policy development.'  The argument was that often it is necessary to add new 
> people to a mix in order to review a new set of requirements, as  those who 
> have been laboring under the old set of requirements are not fully capable of 
> properly integrating new requirements - it is just human nature.
> -- As someone pointed out, the majority of the members of the group were 
> North Americans.  It only seems appropriate that this should cause the group 
> to desperately work to add people from other regions.  While the final report 
> did include an NCSG representative from Africa, getting him on the list was 
> like pulling teeth - and I do appreciate the part you took as chair in making 
> sure he was added to the list.  Here we had a new participant to the ICANN 
> who was initially and insistently told by Policy Staff that he should not 
> come because he was a newcomer to ICANN. 
> -- It was assumed that new people would not do their homework and read 
> pervious mailing list discussions  or listen to recording of previous 
> meetings.  I think this is slanderous, I think most new participants will do 
> their homework and when they don't it is obvious and the group can deal with 
> those exceptions.  I would also be interested in knowing that all of those 
> who are considered old attendees because they were at half or fewer of the 
> meetings have listened to the recordings of all the meeting they missed.  I 
> assume they did, so why assume the new people won't.
> 
> - You quote the Policy Staff's argument that attending the F2F does not 
> correspond to participation and that being excluded from a F2F does not 
> constitute being excluded from the process.  Several of us disagreed with 
> this assumption, but these arguments were not represented.  ICANN has been 
> totally incapable of offering reliable remote participation at a F2F meeting 
> - not its fault - it is a difficult thing to do on a global basis.  A remote 
> participant may hear a bit of the conversation and may occasionally get a 
> word in edgewise, but cannot really participate.  This is especially so when 
> things get touchy and people take a break to go off and huddle in smaller 
> groups to come up with the compromises.  Also once a F2F has occurred, those 
> who were not there and have been effectively excluded from the nitty-gritty 
> discussions are often told "but we discussed this at length in the F2F and 
> this is what we compromised on - how can you reopen this issue now - didn't 
> you read the transcript?"  This is not full and equal representation.  Often 
> a common mind set is established at a F2F; this is a good thing for groups 
> consensus, except that it leaves out those who were not adequately 
> represented.  I ask again, if being at the F2F is not critical for getting to 
> consensus and everything decided at the F2F is still open for further 
> discussion and deliberation, why hold a F2F at all?
> 
> - The NCSG is not the NCUC of old, as it has 3 appointed Board Council 
> members in addition to continuing to grow faster then any other SG.  No 
> outreach was made to these new members of the council who were picked to 
> represent 3 communities that the Board felt were not adequately represented 
> in our community.  It seems some effort should have been taken to bring these 
> new people into the process.  And perhaps even a seat should have been 
> offered to them (or some of them or someone they designated).  Of course had 
> NCSG been offered 3 seats instead of just 1, this might have been dealt with.
> 
> - That although a seat was made available for ALAC, certainly something the 
> NCSG agrees with, no provision was made for the GAC member who has added much 
> to some of the dialogue.  I would note that he did respond to the doodle poll 
> (http://www.doodle.com/u6ta33ik4r5mk52g)
> 
> 3.  That you had not gone to the PPSC.
> 
> First, yes it is true that I am no longer a member of the PPSC as I am no 
> longer an NCA and no longer council chair.  However the alternate NCA, Olga 
> Cavalli, still is an NCA. And Chuck who was the alternate is now the council 
> chair - so both of my old hats are covered by others.  I was not saying you 
> did not get my consensus in the PPSC but rather that you did not have it in 
> the PDP-WT.
> 
> Second if I remember correctly a consensus call in the PPSC was deemed to be 
> a polled consensus, not a passive consensus, where each of the members, or 
> alternate if primary was unavailable, was directly asked for a yes or now.  
> Sending message out on 5 Dec and declaring on 9 Dec that no one answered, is 
> not the PPSC process I remember.
> 
> You also say that some of the PPSC members are no longer part of council.  
> This is irrelevant.  The PPSC was made up of constituency representatives not 
> necessarily Council members, except in the case of NCAs and the 
> chair/vice-chair.  In all cases, I think that either the Primary or the 
> Secondary is still a community participant.  It is true, that the PPSC should 
> have been reconstituted right after Seoul (and this may be true of the OSC as 
> well) with a call to all of the SGs for updating of representatives. As you 
> are chair of the PPSC, it seems that perhaps this was your responsibility.
> 
> This incident has brought out one issue in  the conflict of interest between 
> the chair of a delegated body and the chair of the chartering body.  You are 
> chair of both.  In this case, I do believe your zeal to do what you saw as 
> your duty as PDP-WT chair has perhaps overridden your desire to be a strict 
> taskmaster in the PPSC.    This is natural and not mentioned as a personal 
> criticism.  But it is one of the reasons why I generally argue against the 
> chair of a chartering body, or even one of its members, being the chair of a 
> delegated body.  In this case, since you had a PPSC alternate chair, it might 
> have been better for Jay Scott to have handled the PPSC responsibilities in 
> regard to the PDP-WT, with you still being in position to handle the chair 
> duties in regard to the WG-WT.
> 
> Again, thank you for the opportunity to respond to your declaration of 
> consensus.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 10 Dec 2009, at 00:59, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> 
> > Avri,
> >
> > I apologize if you believe that.  I thought I was taking some of the 
> > language from your e-mails, but like I said, I am happy to be corrected.  
> > Can you please point out what has been distorted so I can make sure th 
> > record is corrected?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> > Vice President, Law & Policy
> > NeuStar, Inc.
> > Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wed Dec 09 18:52:34 2009
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face 
> > Meeting
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I do believe you misrepresented the full consensus on the team as I did not 
> > participate in such consensus.
> >
> > I also think you have distorted the NCSG reasoning very prejudicially.
> >
> > I also do not believe you even asked for a PPSC consensus call.
> >
> > a.
> >
> > On 10 Dec 2009, at 00:17, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> >
> >> Chuck,
> >>
> >> Please find enclosed a request by the PDP Work Team for a 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.  There 
> >> was a consensus within the PDP WT for such a face to face meeting for the 
> >> reasons stated within the attached document and should address some of the 
> >> concerns that we have seen on the GNSO Council list over the past several 
> >> weeks.   We offer no opinion in this document on the general role of face 
> >> to face meetings, the Council role in approving or supporting those face 
> >> to face meetings, etc., but rather focus 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 
> >> some comments from the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group with respect to who 
> >> was eligible for funding from ICANN.  The discussions are archived on two 
> >> lists (the PPSC list: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/) and 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.
> >>
> >> What follows is my brief summary of the issues raised to the best of my 
> >> knowledge.  If I have misstated any of the arguments, I apologize in 
> >> advance, and would be happy to be corrected.  Essentially, the PDP WT is 
> >> recommending that 1 person be funded by ICANN staff from each constituency 
> >> to attend the face to face.  The NCSG has argued that there should be the 
> >> same number of representatives from each of the Stakeholder groups, which 
> >> would mean that if ICANN provides funding for the three CSG constituencies 
> >> to attend, then it should fund three reps from the NCSG, RySG and RrSG to 
> >> attend as well (as opposed to the recommended 1 from the NCSG, RySG and 
> >> RrSG).  The argument is that we have now reorganized into SGs and parity 
> >> should be provided on an SG basis as opposed to constituency basis, and 
> >> that the NCSG believes that this policy will exclude participation from 
> >> the noncommercial users.  It is important to note that neither the 
> >> Registries nor the Registrars have raised t!
> hose arguments nor do they agree with the NCSG view.
> >>
> >> ICANN staff has responded to the NCSG stating that participation in the 
> >> PDP WT has never been exclusionary and that the Work Team has been open to 
> >> anyone wanting to participate on-line, in conference calls, etc.  However, 
> >> “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 c!
> onclusions so the public, the PPSC and the GNSO have a concrete initial draft 
> to consider.”
> >>
> >> As Chair of the PDP WT, my personal view, for what it is worth, is more in 
> >> line with ICANN staff’s view.  I believe it is not the quantity of persons 
> >> funded to attend the face to face that should matter, but rather the 
> >> quality.  I need to do my job to make sure all view points are heard, 
> >> discussed, and addressed whether it is one person making the argument or 
> >> three.  The fact is that we have not had three reps from the NCSG 
> >> participate on a regular basis in the WT and to have three reps for the 
> >> sake of having an equal number of representatives to me does not make 
> >> sense.  My view is that the most important reason for requesting this face 
> >> to face meeting is to make progress on the work of the WT.  To introduce 
> >> new players into the process now, after a year’s worth of calls, meetings, 
> >> surveys, reports, etc. at a face to face meeting for the first time may 
> >> not be lend itself to a productive meeting.  On the other hand, if the 
> >> ICANN staff and/or Council do decide that it is i!
> n the best interest of the Internet Community to allow all SGs (including 
> Registries and Registrars by the way) to have 3 reps funded, then we will 
> need to ensure that those participants are up to speed on the work, have read 
> all of the materials, and that we do not recover old ground.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> <Request for a PDP WT Face to Face meeting - updated 3 December 2009.doc>
> >
> >
> >
> 
>