Lise, As I said in the meeting, if we cite the GAC explicitly, we will also need to add whether that any GAC advice/views were received in a timely manner. I did not call out the GAC explicitly when I drafted this, because I was aware of the answer. On the PDP process that we will be evaluating, I do not believe that we have received any GAC advice or even, had the benefit of general views during the process. There may be some subtle examples of views being known, but I can't be sure. I cannot recal any intervention of the GAC AFTER the PDP was completed and passed to the Board where the GAC objected. Perhaps Avri has a memory of such an occurrence. Note that the new gTLD PDP was before the period we are reviewing, since it was a completely different process, the IGO/INGO PDP is not yet completed, and there has been no completed PDP on Whois during that period either. Alan At 21/06/2013 05:26 AM, Lise Fuhr wrote:

Hi all,

I think that Avri´s version changes the focus too much away from the purpose of Jørgen's text, a purpose that it is my understanding that there were support to at the conference call.

If we only look at GAC's status as defined in ICANN's bylaws the scope is much narrower and we will not review if there are any needs to change the bylaws or other processes but only if ICANN is complying to the existing bylaws in this matter.

So I find we should keep Jørgen's wording.

Best, Lise

-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Avri Doria Sendt: 20. juni 2013 20:21 Cc: ATRT2 Emne: Re: [atrt2] PDP Effectiveness Study

Hi,

I would be more comfortable with a more ICANN centric question, like:

- Whether the views of the GAC have been handled appropriately given their status as defined in the ICANN bylaws.

avri

On 20 Jun 2013, at 12:41, Jørgen C Abild Andersen wrote:

...

Dear colleagues

Proposal for a new bullit between 86 and 87 (a 86A):

- whether in particular the views and advice provided by GAC has been duly taken into account given the specific tasks of national governments with respect to public policy.

Best wishes Jørgen _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

Carlos, colleagues, not going deeper into the essence of the problem mentioned by Avri and Lise, I have to confirm, that GAC is seen as a very innefficient mechanism by (at least part of) post-Soviet governments in my region. While a lot of people, including those whom I know well personally, and/or who are GAC members, do not share such views. So, very unfortunately, I don't have my own answer to the question, what exactly is wrong: the model itself (=> needs the revision of AoC), the interaction between different ICANN's bodies and divisions, including the staff and the Board (needs certain intervention by the Board and/or the management of ICANN), or the perception of GAC members or its current composition (=> needs certain internal decisions inside GAC)? Maybe, it could be reasonable to discuss this problem separately. Kind regards, Michael 2013/6/21 Carlos Raul <carlosraulg@gmail.com>

if everything you said is true, the absolute absence of GAC advice is enough to ring all the bells Allan!!!! If GAC is innefective, do we need another GAC model? GA without a "C"?

*Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez* Skype carlos.raulg _________ Apartado 1571-1000 *COSTA RICA*

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:

...

Lise,

As I said in the meeting, if we cite the GAC explicitly, we will also need to add whether that any GAC advice/views were received in a timely manner.

I did not call out the GAC explicitly when I drafted this, because I was aware of the answer. On the PDP process that we will be evaluating, I do not believe that we have received any GAC advice or even, had the benefit of general views during the process. There may be some subtle examples of views being known, but I can't be sure. I cannot recal any intervention of the GAC AFTER the PDP was completed and passed to the Board where the GAC objected. Perhaps Avri has a memory of such an occurrence.

Note that the new gTLD PDP was before the period we are reviewing, since it was a completely different process, the IGO/INGO PDP is not yet completed, and there has been no completed PDP on Whois during that period either.

Alan

At 21/06/2013 05:26 AM, Lise Fuhr wrote:

...

Hi all,

I think that Avri´s version changes the focus too much away from the purpose of Jørgen's text, a purpose that it is my understanding that there were support to at the conference call.

If we only look at GAC's status as defined in ICANN's bylaws the scope is much narrower and we will not review if there are any needs to change the bylaws or other processes but only if ICANN is complying to the existing bylaws in this matter.

So I find we should keep Jørgen's wording.

Best, Lise

-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Avri Doria Sendt: 20. juni 2013 20:21 Cc: ATRT2 Emne: Re: [atrt2] PDP Effectiveness Study

Hi,

I would be more comfortable with a more ICANN centric question, like:

- Whether the views of the GAC have been handled appropriately given their status as defined in the ICANN bylaws.

avri

On 20 Jun 2013, at 12:41, Jørgen C Abild Andersen wrote:

...

Dear colleagues

Proposal for a new bullit between 86 and 87 (a 86A):

- whether in particular the views and advice provided by GAC has been duly taken into account given the specific tasks of national governments with respect to public policy.

Best wishes Jørgen _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

With all due respect Avri, this is exactly what I consider the problem of ATRT1 and I hope we can improve it this time: *Its ICANN-centric perspective *. We have a wider participation of public servants, as the still unsent letter shows, and we tend to see ICANNs legitimacy based on its ability to convince Governments, every single day, that they are doing their best in taking into account its considerations, independently if through (a definition) of GAC in the By-laws, or directly from Governments themselves or through a meta-definition of public interest. Luckily ICANN has today a CEO that, is taking its outreach to Governments very seriously and consulting them more widely than GAC itself sometimes does (due to lack of time of course). GAC has a full paragraph dedicated in 9.1 *(b) assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC and its interaction with the Board and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN ofGAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS;* For that reason I support Jorgens very diplomatic language. I would be more blunt: my reading of 9.1 is that if GAC-BOARD relations are not effective, Governments should consider other channels to put their thoughts forward. I hope you all have a nice weekend! *Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez* Skype carlos.raulg _________ Apartado 1571-1000 *COSTA RICA* On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:

Hi,

I would be more comfortable with a more ICANN centric question, like:

- Whether the views of the GAC have been handled appropriately given their status as defined in the ICANN bylaws.

avri

On 20 Jun 2013, at 12:41, Jørgen C Abild Andersen wrote:

...

Dear colleagues

Proposal for a new bullit between 86 and 87 (a 86A):

- whether in particular the views and advice provided by GAC has been duly taken into account given the specific tasks of national governments with respect to public policy.

Best wishes Jørgen _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

Avri, I was just trying to be polite. i will be as clear as I can write in English, and will just quote from the justification of my one pager, which was not meant to be personal. It goes as follows : *In many Internet governance and standards organizations, technical barriers are beneficial: in the IETF they contribute to meritocratic evaluation of proposals; in technology development processes they ensure the quality of contributions; in technical policy making they are a reality check and ensure operational efficacy. In each of these, technical barriers contribute to quality control. But when engaging with public policy makers, technical barriers preclude effective engagement and dialogue, and may foster distrust. * *Currently, the mechanisms for evaluating this phenomenon as an outcome are poorly understood. An illustration is the current relationship between the GAC, the Board, and some of its joint working groups (operating principles, by-laws, PDP). The Board has placed the GAC in a box and their engagement through joint WGs is confounded by technical barriers that are not aligned with the types of outcomes policy makers base their decisions based on. The result is a body that has a fundamental regulatory role, but that both denies that role in favor of a poorly articulated .... model of multi-stakeholderism and that has unintentionally alienated those policy agents in government that could best help them develop this role. * based on that: yes, I would agree that based on that statemnt you can tag me into our second group if you like. No problem with your own prejudices.

From that quote, I support a wider external perspective about ICANN, simply because I'm working for one Government that really tries hard to express its opinion (see ITRs),

You may want to elaborate on how we can bridge the two groups as per your clasification. Cheers Carlos Raul 2013/6/21 Avri Doria <avri@ella.com>

Hi,

"with all due respect"? I must be in trouble now!

....

I beleive all the mechanisms needed for very involved Nation State and GAC participation exist are contained in the By-Laws and PDP process as well as WG guidelines, it is just that these mechanisms are rarely if ever used.

Others seem to beleive that Nation States and GAC are given no real voice in fulfilling their stakeholder mandate in a manner appropriate to their definition of their roles and responsibilities.

If we assume that both are right, then what we may have is a mismatch of mechanisms and capabilities. Perhaps that is what will be discovered.

What I think is critical in this, like other questions we ask, is asking the question in a non prejudicial manner.

avri

On 21 Jun 2013, at 08:30, Carlos Raul wrote:

...

With all due respect Avri, this is exactly what I consider the problem of ATRT1 and I hope we can improve it this time: Its ICANN-centric perspective.

We have a wider participation of public servants, as the still unsent letter shows, and we tend to see ICANNs legitimacy based on its ability to convince Governments, every single day, that they are doing their best in taking into account its considerations, independently if through (a definition) of GAC in the By-laws, or directly from Governments themselves or through a meta-definition of public interest.

Luckily ICANN has today a CEO that, is taking its outreach to Governments very seriously and consulting them more widely than GAC itself sometimes does (due to lack of time of course). GAC has a full paragraph dedicated in 9.1

(b) assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC and its interaction with the Board and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN ofGAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS;

For that reason I support Jorgens very diplomatic language. I would be more blunt: my reading of 9.1 is that if GAC-BOARD relations are not effective, Governments should consider other channels to put their thoughts forward.

I hope you all have a nice weekend!

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Skype carlos.raulg _________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote: Hi,

I would be more comfortable with a more ICANN centric question, like:

- Whether the views of the GAC have been handled appropriately given their status as defined in the ICANN bylaws.

avri

On 20 Jun 2013, at 12:41, Jørgen C Abild Andersen wrote:

...

Dear colleagues

Proposal for a new bullit between 86 and 87 (a 86A):

- whether in particular the views and advice provided by GAC has been duly taken into account given the specific tasks of national governments with respect to public policy.

Best wishes Jørgen _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

-- *Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez* skype carlos.raulg _________ Apartado 1571-1000 *COSTA RICA* Mobile +506 6060 7176

Thank you very Avri! this is the way to make progress in the team. Just let me make two clarifications of how I meant two important terms - *technical barriers*: I mean from the point of view of the* GAC reps*. Regulators, who sometimes have more technical knowledge, are oficialy excluded from GAC representation. It's fine with me, but then GAC should remain at the high level policy only and not chase the PDP process in all its stages, as my Australian colleague stated clearly before ATRT2 in Beijing. IETF is a purely technical forum. GAC should be a Public policy/public interest forum, but it is not.I don't believe GACs role is along the whole bottom up process, its only and "advisory" to the Board level - *Regulatory role*: I mean* ICANNs regulatory role*, as per the group letter from 6 or so At Large members, that Olivier distributed a few weeks ago (J.J.*Subrenat et.al.* I would call it). I agree with those views and believe that if ICANN pursues a transparent "*Standard setting plus compliance/regulatory*" model, its legitimacy would be much easier to understand/accept for a much wider group of Governments than today's minority. But maybe they don`t want to differentiate Governments role (which has its own standard of legitimacy, not meaning they are always higher or lower) from other Stakeholders "rights". Have a nice Sunday Carlos Raul 2013/6/22 Avri Doria <avri@ella.com>

Hi,

Sorry I misread the worlds "with all due respect" I always see that being used differently, more as a weapon. I guess it is all part of the relativism of expression.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by 'technical barriers'. The reference to IETF makes me think it meant "knowing what what one was talking about in terms of the technology." It may be my great misunderstanding, but I do assume that in making policy for technology one should understand the technology. But I may not understand.

I also do not understand what you mean about GAC being in a regulatory role. While I beleive that ICANN, as a whole, provides regulatory functions, I do not see GAC itself as being in a regulatory role.

Finally, from what I see, every stakeholder feels that they do not have adequate access to the process. But I think this is partly the result of all sharing access. I can tell for sure that Civil society feels that it is pushed in the corner and that its human rights concerns are ignored at every turn. Many contracted parties seem to feel that others, especially staff, have captured the process and their concerns do not get proper regard. The Intellectual property constituencies think their real and desperate concerns are being ignored. And so on for each stakeholder group that could be named. Each of us can point to another stakeholder group and see how much more influence they have over the process. From my Civil Society perspective, it looks like the GAC already rules the organization: they issue a statement, whisper threats about the ITU/WCIT eating ICANN's lunch, and the Board strives to do what they want - the Board has never done that for civil society, we feel ignored, deprecated and endured only for the semblance of multistakeholder appearances. Each of us can point to parts in the process where we think we are not being allowed to participate fully and adequately. I think this group has to take into account that all of the stakeholders feel thwarted by the nature of the multistakeholder process, and the ATRT2 should not elevate any group's concerns beyond the others. We need to improve multistakeholder accountability, not the accountability to any single stakeholder group.

I think the issue, given the multistakeholder nature of our group and of ICANN, is to figure out how we can become more accountable, as a multistakeholder organization, to all of its stakeholders, in a system where by its very nature, no one will get what all that they want.

thanks

avri

On 22 Jun 2013, at 06:37, Carlos Raul Gutierrez wrote:

...

Avri,

I was just trying to be polite. i will be as clear as I can write in English, and will just quote from the justification of my one pager, which was not meant to be personal. It goes as follows : In many Internet governance and standards organizations, technical barriers are beneficial: in the IETF they contribute to meritocratic evaluation of proposals; in technology development processes they ensure the quality of contributions; in technical policy making they are a reality check and ensure operational efficacy. In each of these, technical barriers contribute to quality control. But when engaging with public policy makers, technical barriers preclude effective engagement and dialogue, and may foster distrust.

Currently, the mechanisms for evaluating this phenomenon as an outcome are poorly understood. An illustration is the current relationship between the GAC, the Board, and some of its joint working groups (operating principles, by-laws, PDP). The Board has placed the GAC in a box and their engagement through joint WGs is confounded by technical barriers that are not aligned with the types of outcomes policy makers base their decisions based on. The result is a body that has a fundamental regulatory role, but that both denies that role in favor of a poorly articulated .... model of multi-stakeholderism and that has unintentionally alienated those policy agents in government that could best help them develop this role.

based on that: yes, I would agree that based on that statemnt you can tag me into our second group if you like. No problem with your own prejudices. From that quote, I support a wider external perspective about ICANN, simply because I'm working for one Government that really tries hard to express its opinion (see ITRs),

You may want to elaborate on how we can bridge the two groups as per your clasification.

Cheers Carlos Raul

2013/6/21 Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> Hi,

"with all due respect"? I must be in trouble now!

....

I beleive all the mechanisms needed for very involved Nation State and GAC participation exist are contained in the By-Laws and PDP process as well as WG guidelines, it is just that these mechanisms are rarely if ever used.

Others seem to beleive that Nation States and GAC are given no real voice in fulfilling their stakeholder mandate in a manner appropriate to their definition of their roles and responsibilities.

If we assume that both are right, then what we may have is a mismatch of mechanisms and capabilities. Perhaps that is what will be discovered.

What I think is critical in this, like other questions we ask, is asking the question in a non prejudicial manner.

avri

On 21 Jun 2013, at 08:30, Carlos Raul wrote:

...

With all due respect Avri, this is exactly what I consider the problem of ATRT1 and I hope we can improve it this time: Its ICANN-centric perspective.

We have a wider participation of public servants, as the still unsent letter shows, and we tend to see ICANNs legitimacy based on its ability to convince Governments, every single day, that they are doing their best in taking into account its considerations, independently if through (a definition) of GAC in the By-laws, or directly from Governments themselves or through a meta-definition of public interest.

Luckily ICANN has today a CEO that, is taking its outreach to Governments very seriously and consulting them more widely than GAC itself sometimes does (due to lack of time of course). GAC has a full paragraph dedicated in 9.1

(b) assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC and its interaction with the Board and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN ofGAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS;

For that reason I support Jorgens very diplomatic language. I would be more blunt: my reading of 9.1 is that if GAC-BOARD relations are not effective, Governments should consider other channels to put their thoughts forward.

I hope you all have a nice weekend!

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Skype carlos.raulg _________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote: Hi,

I would be more comfortable with a more ICANN centric question, like:

- Whether the views of the GAC have been handled appropriately given their status as defined in the ICANN bylaws.

avri

On 20 Jun 2013, at 12:41, Jørgen C Abild Andersen wrote:

...

Dear colleagues

Proposal for a new bullit between 86 and 87 (a 86A):

- whether in particular the views and advice provided by GAC has been duly taken into account given the specific tasks of national governments with respect to public policy.

Best wishes Jørgen _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

-- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez skype carlos.raulg _________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA

Mobile +506 6060 7176 _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

-- *Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez* skype carlos.raulg _________ Apartado 1571-1000 *COSTA RICA* Mobile +506 6060 7176