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

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

Thanks Chuck.  At this point, if we are unable to meet on the 18th and 19th, we 
are not sure it makes sense to have the F2F before Nairobi, which would cause a 
delay in our schedule.  Therefore, we most likely would attempt to resolve 
through conference calls and Web Exs.  This would require using something more 
keen to working on documents than Adobe.  We will need to examine that, but at 
this point we will not be modifying our initial request to the Council.  


Thanks.

 

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.

 

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 2:41 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting

 

If a vote is delayed, that does not mean discussion would or should stop.  In 
fact, usually what happens when a vote is delayed is that it is deferred to the 
next meeting so it is important that discussion continues in preparation for a 
vote at the next meeting.  In this case though, you may need to modify your 
request with a later date for a F2F meeting.

 

Chuck

         

        
________________________________


        From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 2:26 PM
        To: Neuman, Jeff; Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face 
Meeting

        All,

         

        Just a short update.  Although this request was provided seven days 
prior to a council meeting, an official motion was provided by Wolf (thank 
Wolf), on the 13th.  Some are arguing that this along with the fact that there 
are some significant issues to discuss around priority, who can request a face 
to face meeting, who can approve a face to face meeting, etc., and therefore 
are recommending that at least a vote be put off on the motion until the next 
meeting in January.  I am still not clear as to whether putting off a vote also 
means putting off the discussion, but I suppose Chuck can clear that up.  
Please make sure you communicate with your constituencies/stakeholder groups, 
etc so that they can provide input to your respective Councilors.

         

        In the meantime, regardless of how this comes out, we still have some 
considerable work ahead of us.  We are still having a call this Thursday and we 
still need comments in from Stages 1 and 2.  We are compiling the results of 
the Survey on Stage 4 and will provide that to you.  Please make every effort 
to be on the call this week.  We will not be devoting much time on the call to 
a discussion of the potential face to face as it has taken up way too much time 
already.  It will be nice to see the same dedication and commitment to the work 
ahead of us as we have seen to the issue of a face to face meeting.

         

        If we do not have a face to face, we are going to propose an 
alternative, which may consist of one or two marathon conference calls/web exs 
which will aid in our work.   A doodle will be sent around  shortly to find 
convenient times for this to occur.  I am assuming this can be done without 
Council approval.

         

        Thanks.

         

         

        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.

         

         

        From: owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
        Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:47 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-ppsc] Support for a PDP Work Team Face to Face Meeting

         

        Chuck,

         

        Please find enclosed a request by the PDP Work Team for a face to face 
meeting in January 2010 which sets forth the rationale for needing such a 
working session.  This draft  was discussed by the PDP Work Team on e-mail and 
during two conference calls.  Although there was not a consensus on the request 
for such a face to face meeting within the PDP WT, there was strong support 
from the RySG, the IP Constituency, the ISP Constituency, ALAC and one of the 
two Business Constituency representatives  for the reasons stated within the 
attached document.  The Registrar representatives and 1 of the business 
constituency representatives were not in favor of the request.  The NCSG 
generally believes that there could be a positive benefit from a face to face 
meeting with the caveats expressed below.  The PDP WT offers no opinion in this 
document on the general role of face to face meetings, the Council's role in 
approving or supporting those face to face meetings, etc., but rather focuses 
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 a 
number of e-mails on various mailing lists on this topic.  The discussions are 
primarily archived on two lists:  (i) the PPSC list 
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/ 
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc/> ) and (ii) the PDP-WT list (the PDP 
WT list - http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/ 
<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
 
<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.  That is 
a separate issue that I plan on addressing in the next few weeks.  

         

        The NCSG arguments can be found in full at 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ppsc-pdp/msg00241.html.  To summarize, the 
NCSG has argued that there is not a consensus of the group in support of (i) 
the rationale for the Face to Face meeting, (ii) the appropriateness of holding 
such a meeting in the United States, and (iii) the resolution of how many 
people from each SG or constituency should be funded by ICANN to attend.   The 
NCSG believes that there should be parity of representatives funded to attend 
face to face meetings by Stakeholder Group (as opposed to by Constituency).  
Finally, there was a question raised as to who makes the decisions on holding 
and funding these types of meetings (the Work Team, the Steering Committee, the 
GNSO Council, ICANN Policy Staff, etc.).

         

        Whether or not we have a face to face meeting, each member of the PDP 
WT with the exception of one business constituency representative believes that 
the work of the PDP-WT is essential and should be of the highest priority of 
the GNSO Council and community.  The work being performed in the WT was work 
directed to be done ultimately by the Board Governance Committee as part of the 
GNSO Improvements Process.  The finalization of the Policy Development Process 
will guide how all future policy is made under the new structure and as such 
should be resolved as quickly as possible.  The review of the PDP is incredibly 
broad and complex.  There are a number of difficult issues that we have been, 
and continue to be, tackling in order to come up with a process acceptable to 
the global Internet community.  The core group of participants (including ICANN 
policy staff) are diverse, knowledgeable, passionate and highly respected 
members of the community and are fully committed to seeing this process through 
to the end regardless of having this face to face meeting.  I have the utmost 
respect for each member of the team.

         

        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 <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>   / www.neustar.biz 
<http://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.