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

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

Perhaps vote was the wrong word, but in order to measure consensus, I
need to know which one of you speaks for the BC and according to your
note, you have answered that 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: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 11:49 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Avri Doria'
Cc: 'Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx'; 'PPSC'
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team
Face to Face Meeting

I thought we were moving away from an emphasis on voting, especially in
WTs...

That said, only Councilors are empowered to speak for the BC, per our
Charter.  Liz' volunteer efforts are immensely appreciated, but she has
not
requested nor otherwise have we developed any BC consensus on any
position
of relevance to the PDP-WT to date, in particular this very minor issue
of a
F2F meeting.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
(415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 8:44 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Avri Doria
Cc: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx; PPSC
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team
Face to Face Meeting

Thanks Mike.  To clarify, are you the voting rep of the BC on the PDP WT
or is Liz?

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: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 11:36 AM
To: 'Avri Doria'; Neuman, Jeff
Cc: 'Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx'; 'PPSC'
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team
Face to Face Meeting

I agree with Avri's well-stated positions #1 and #3.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
(415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf
Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:56 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx; PPSC
Subject: [gnso-ppsc] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team
Face to
Face Meeting


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 seat 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
the 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 not 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.  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 SG 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 chairs 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 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_commit
tee_
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>
> 
> 
>