ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc] Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting
  • From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:27:59 +0100

I would add "with clearly stated and quantifiable objectives" for the F2F 



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
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy