Re: [gnso-ppsc] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
I would add "with clearly stated and quantifiable objectives" for the F2F meeting... Thanks, Stéphane Le 10 déc. 2009 à 15:55, Avri Doria a écrit : > > 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 th! > e 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> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|