RE: draft agenda, RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] REMINDER: PDPFeb06 Task force meeting Thursday 9 November at 19:00 UTC

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Maureen,

Thanks for the work that the chair and interim chair have done to
contributing to advancing the work of the TF PDP 06. I am sorry that I have
received it so late, but will do my best to address my questions quickly,
and ask that they be addressed at the opening of the PDP TF 06 call. 

I will number my comments that I ask to be addressed. 

'standard' level of support definition. To my knowledge, the Council has not
agreed on a standard for the 'level of support'. We have just initiated this
as a practice during PDP Dec 05. While I support the approach, I think that
later, during further work on advancing and improvements in the PDP process
itself, we can 'standardize' what the 'level of support' is agreed to be. 

1. For purposes of today, and the work of the PDP Feb 06, can the policy
staff verify that the determination of support that you are proposing below
is the same definition for levels of support used for the PDP 05? If not, I
would ask that we use those same criteria if they are documented, so that we
have process consistency. 

If there is not documentation quickly available, then I propose that that be
stated in the minutes and for the transcribed record, to document that fact,
and note that we are using a working definition, drafted by the chair,
presented to the TF PDP Feb 06, and accepted for the purposes of advancing
work in this particular TF meeting.  

Can the staff please verify this, between now and the time of the call, so
that we don't have to spend time debating 'facts'. 

Since we do not have a Council discussed and agreed to definition, this
should be done without prejudice, since it is to advance work but cannot be
taken to establish rules of operation. I don't propose that we take time to
debate and negotiate and research criteria. Using a 'working methods'
approach will facilitate work.  I appreciate the intention of the chair, and
of Avri as a Task Force member is proposing this approach.

2. I do however propose a modification. It is possible that a proposal will
receive constituency support but not NomComm member support.  The role of
the NomComm members is not to represent a constituency, or any other group,
as we all are all aware. Thus, if there is not NomComm member support, that
should be noted, but should not void a degree of support. I would also
suggest that for purposes of showing support that the support of the At
Large liaison should also be noted for the record.

This is of course, a show of support and not a vote. Thus, it is entirely
possible constituencies are not organized to have a constituency position on
these recommendations. That has not been required nor has time permitted;
thus it is possible that a constituency might have a split 'show of
support'. As I understand the proposal, the support of each individual
member of the TF will be shown. 

We do however need to recognize that not all TF members will be on the call,
so we need to note constituency support, versus the number of TF members who
are on the call. I would assume that can be done in the summing up. 

Regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cubberley, Maureen
(CHT)
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 12:50 AM
To: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: draft agenda, RE: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] REMINDER: PDPFeb06 Task force
meeting Thursday 9 November at 19:00 UTC 


Thank you Glen for the reminder.

Thanks to Liz for writing the Draft Task Force Report, which is posted at
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/


In this email, I am attaching a short document that Avri and I developed and
which we hope will be useful as a support piece during tomorrow's
teleconference. 

**It is a short working document and has no official status.**

It lists (in numerical order) the proposed recommendations excerpted from
the two rapporteur groups' reports.  It also contains some notes and a chart
- all of which are intended to serve as organizational guides to the
information provided by the rapporteur groups.  

These notes and the chart are the interpretation of the writers and are not
intended to add to, subtract from, or in any way change the content of the
work of the Rapporteur Groups. Rather, they are an attempt to add a bit of
clarity to some sections of the reports; to help us determine, as a Task
Force, where areas of support and consensus could exist, and possibly to
contribute to the next iteration of the Task Force Report.

For tomorrow, I propose that we pick up where we left off at the end of the
last teleconference, but that we alter our approach. One of the things we
should decide is what we mean by 'support'.

The following draft agenda is intended to get us to the point where we will
be able to determine levels of support amongst the task force members for
the recommendations presented by the two groups of rapporteurs.


Draft Agenda.

1. Roll call
2. Approval of agenda, and any additions under Other Business
3. Defining levels of support
        Starting Point -  Proposal for Discussion purposes only:
                Strong Support =  a minimum of four constituencies, with
some                                    noncom support
                Medium Support = a minimum of three constituencies, with
some                                    noncom support
                Minimal Support = a minimum of two constituencies, with some
noncom support
                Single Constituency Support = the support of one
constituency 
                No Support = no support from any constituencies or noncom
members
4. Walk-through of each Rapporteur Group Report
5. Roundtable - each task force member indicating support/lack of support
for each of the proposed policy recommendations.*
6. Synopsis 
7. Other Business
8.  Next meeting - date
9. Adjournment

*Note: I am in full agreement with the view that was expressed during the
last teleconference that it is important to discuss these recommendations
fully and understand their implications. I also believe that it is important
that we not allow the process to compromise the product. 

We do have to progress in our discussions, so that the draft report can move
closer to becoming a final report.  For this reason, I respectfully request
that we all attempt to frame our comments and questions during agenda item 5
in a way that is constructive and/or instructive.  The purpose of our
discussions tomorrow should be to achieve clarity about the recommendations;
To get us to the point where everyone is able to determine the extent to
which they support them. Of course this does not preclude further
discussion.........we have much more to discuss.  


Best regards,

Maureen





-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 6:48 PM
To: pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] REMINDER: PDPFeb06 Task force meeting Thursday 9
November at 19:00 UTC 

Dear All,

REMINDER

There will be a PDPFeb06 task force meeting on Thursday 9 November 2006.

Time:
11:00 LA, 13:00 Winnipeg, 14:00 Washington DC., 16:00 Buenos Aires,
19:00 UTC, London, 20:00 Brussels,  21:00 Istanbul, 08:00 Wellington
Friday 10 November

Dial-in Numbers:
Leaders name: Glen de Saint Gery
Pascode: Task Force

Dial-in numbers are the same as for the last call.
Let me know if you need a resend.

The call will be transcribed and recorded.
All draft documents, transcripts,  and the draft report can be viewed at:
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/

Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Kind regards,

Glen

-- 
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org