Dear Jonathan: I meant to add earlier that I concur with your assessment on status completely. And, if others are in agreement, I think it may be useful to highlight not only that "the GAC's input should be focused primarily on the potential public policy implications of the work of the GNSO," but that we should also develop a way to identify very early on and apprise everyone as to whether a particular aspect of our policy work has potential public policy implications. For example, take the potential public policy implications the PPSAI PDP WG may have; is there a clear way to encapsulate those for the GAC now that the WG is underway? Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118 p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244 brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> / www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> From: Winterfeldt, Brian J. Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 6:19 PM To: Amr Elsadr Cc: Mike O'Connor; <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>; Mary Wong; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique I'm happy to participate as well. Best, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower<x-apple-data-detectors://0> - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118<x-apple-data-detectors://1/0> p / (202) 625-3562<tel:(202)%20625-3562> f / (202) 339-8244<tel:(202)%20339-8244> brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> / www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> On Nov 27, 2013, at 1:59 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> wrote: Me too. Thanks. Amr Sent from mobile On Nov 27, 2013, at 5:56 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> wrote: i'm in. mikey On Nov 27, 2013, at 10:51 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: Great to have this level of engagement on a topic! A couple of points on status: 1. The issue arises formally from a recommendation of ATRT 1 i.e. that the GAC should engage earlier with the GNSO PDP. 2. My interpretation is: a) that it is intended that this engagement / input should be such that when (and if) the GAC does provide Advice (to the Board), it is at least not unexpected and, at best, consistent with GNSO policy / policy advice. And b) that the GAC's input (to the GNSO policy work) should be focussed primarily on the potential (or actual) public policy implications of the corresponding GNSO policy work. Of course, the devil is in both the detail and the expectations of the format of and response to the input of the GAC. That is what the table that Marika sent around attempts to start to flesh out. And, therefore, the scope of the joint team to try to make progress on. I received an update today from Manal which suggests that the GAC may participate with as many as 6 participants. In which case, it seems to me, that we need a balanced number of participants. Should that be the case, some of you on this thread may wish to volunteer to participate. To set expectations, I am anticipating that we'll have a mailing list and regular calls (say 2 weekly), not dissimilar to a GNSO working group. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] Sent: 26 November 2013 17:53 To: Mary Wong Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique Interesting. Thanks Mary. Amr On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:43 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: For the benefit of some of the newer participants among us and the GNSO community - note that even when GAC members participate in WGs, they do not do so as representatives of the GAC, or even their own countries, though they may of course be able to inform the WG of either the GAC's position (if there is one) on the issue at hand. The GAC has been very firm about this, and it may partly have to do with how GAC consensus is achieved - as in other multi-lateral forums, "consensus" is reached if there is no objection by a GAC member to a particular position. Conversely, if just one GAC member objects to a particular position, there is therefore no consensus. This is of course different from how GNSO PDPs and WGs work. As Marika has mentioned, this discussion could be helpful to the small group from the GNSO that will be discussing methods of early engagement with/from the GAC, mindful of Thomas' distinction between GAC Advice (as conceived in the ICANN Bylaws) and GAC input. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> * One World. One Internet. * -----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 12:18 PM To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique Hi all, Thanks for the clarification Thomas. It makes a lot of sense to be wary of what kind of early engagement we¹d like to encourage from the GAC, and I don¹t find it surprising that there seems to be a general sense of agreement here on how this should be done. I, like others, feel it would be great to have more GAC representatives become involved in PDP WGs, but cannot confidently predict how this would affect the GAC reaction at-large. I am not familiar with how the GAC collectively reaches a position on PDP outcomes. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that these positions are prepared by only a handful of their members. If anyone else has insights on how this is done, I¹d appreciate it if you shared. Like Chuck said, we do have two GAC reps on the policy and implementation WG, but this is not a PDP WG. And unless I am mistaken (and please correct me if I¹m wrong on this Chuck), their participation both during calls and on-list is quite limited. I bring this up because encouraging GAC members to join WGs is one thing, and encouraging them to actively engage in the consensus development of policy recommendations is another. I hope we can encourage them to do both. I am curious to see how interaction at this level (the WG level) might affect GAC Advice (capital A) and their collective perception of the necessity and manner of early engagement. Thanks. Amr On Nov 26, 2013, at 5:30 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> wrote: ah! *very* helpful. thanks Thomas for taking the time to craft that reply. and thanks to John for picking up how i misunderstood the core of Thomas' argument. i agree with you that capital-A advice would indeed be complicated for a WG to handle, given that the goal of WG discussion is to arrive at positions that are usually different from the starting points of each participant. does Berry's contribution to this thread (describing USG comments during a comment period) provide an avenue for slightly-less-firm input from the GAC, or GAC members? while WG's are not required to incorporate comments into their final positions, they ARE required to respond to each comment -- which might provide an avenue for dialog. focusing on developing that approach might lead us to a good middle ground between the WG's need for flexibility/negotiation and the GAC's need for structure and due deliberation. m On Nov 26, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> wrote: John, Mikey and Chuck, to start with, I am not against early GAC input and you will remember that I have encouraged that the GAC or individual GA members get involved at the earliest possible date. Let me quote from my earlier e-mail where I explicitly stated that: The GAC should engage early so that PDP WGs get an indication as to what the GAC or even individual GAC member's thinking is. This is valuable and will help a lot. What we should discuss, though, is whether GAC Advice (capital letter A) should be directed at PDP WGs during a PDP or at the G-Council. Bear in mind, I spoke about GAC Advice and not about GAC input. My hesitation with respect to GAC Advice during a PDP stems from the following considerations: - The term GAC Advice has legal implications. At the moment GAC Advice is only directed at the Board and the Board can only disregard GAC Advice under certain circumstances. - If GAC Advice were also directed at PDP WGs, would or should that be a second opportunity for the GAC to give Advice (capital A)? If so, what would be the consequences of that? - Could the WG disregard GAC Advice? If so, what would give the WG authority to do so? PDP WGs work on recommendations to be made to the Council, but I do not see that it has the legal authority to make binding decisions on behalf of the GNSO or even ICANN, while, in fact, responding to GAC Advice in one way or the other would be or would be seen as acting on behalf of ICANN. - If the WG followed GAC Advice, would that bind the Board at a later stage so the Board looses the right to disregard it? - Either way PDP WGs are tasked to work and I am not sure we should burden their work with issues that might have far-reaching political implications for the whole community. - Comparable issues would arise if GAC Advice would be directed at the G-Council. Again, I very much in favor of GAC early engagement and the discussion that we have here should not dilute that. Even more, GAC early engagement can help avoid friction between the GAC's expectations and the communities work product at a later stage and maybe avoid the necessity for GAC Advice to the Board. What I am asking for is that we carefully consider the consequences of GAC input if such input took the format of GAC Advice for the reasons above. Thanks, Thomas Am 26.11.2013 um 12:36 schrieb John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>>: Thomas, Can you confirm you were arguing against early GAC input? Berard Sent from my iPhone On Nov 26, 2013, at 10:25 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> wrote: hi all, i lean in Chuck's direction with regard to WG participation. i don't have the history/knowledge to comment on the relationship between Board/GAC/GNSO-Council... as i've come to know the WG process over the years, i've found that it works better when there are more inputs rather than fewer. that doesn't mean that it's easier, only that the results are more robust. i've always hoped for more participation by members of the GAC and am keen to find ways that they could do that. i also agree with Chuck that earlier participation is a great thing. much like any project, the sooner we can get help figuring out the gaps in our thinking, or the reasons why a given direction is to be desired, the easier it is to get on the right track. and the less backtracking/repair/recovery we need to do later on. often people don't really mind changing the direction a conversation is going if it resolves a divergence -- but when the journey is nearly done, WG members are weary and the road to the new place is long, sometimes participants get frustrated and resist the change just because it's hard to get from here to there. these thoughts don't just apply to the GAC, but any point of view that needs to be expressed in a WG. more voices is good. earlier is good. like Chuck, i'm willing to be persuaded. :-) mikey On Nov 26, 2013, at 8:12 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Thomas, Please see my responses below. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 5:45 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique Hi Avri and Chuck, in my view, we should have a discussion on our expectations some time soon. Other than Avri, I do think that the GAC could engage early and / or acknowledge the role and work products of the GNSO and at the same time only consider the Board as its equal. [Chuck Gomes] I think the Bylaws should be changed so the GAC is encouraged to provide input to WGs as early as possible like they did with the IGO-INGO PDP WG, albeit via the Board. I personally think that the language in the Bylaws that says that the GAC should be complemented with language that says they also give advice to policy WGs that involve public policy issues. The excuse that they are just advisors to the Board should be removed. During the GAC/GNSO session it was mentioned that the GAC still needs to consider when to give advice during a GNSO policy development process and I am not sure we really want GAC Advice directed at the G-Council or even at the WG level. [Chuck Gomes] Why not? The GAC should engage early so that PDP WGs get an indication as to what the GAC or even individual GAC member's thinking is. This is valuable and will help a lot. I would not like to see special rights for the GAC to be implemented. In that regard, it does not harm if the GAC sees the Board as the group to direct advice at. [Chuck Gomes] As you can see by my earlier comments, I disagree but am open to being convinced otherwise. We should discuss this further - maybe in one of the upcoming telcos. [Chuck Gomes] I am open to discussion but remember that I am only a temporary alternate on the Council and probably will not be on any more Council calls. Thanks, Thomas Am 22.11.2013 um 18:09 schrieb "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>: Note that we have two GAC participants in the Policy & Implementation (P&I) WG. We suggested in our letter to the GAC that they might be able to serve in some sort of unofficial liaison capacity if the GAC was okay with that, not representing the GAC but being communication channels. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 12:13 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique Hi, I do not think this should surprise us. And I mean the disrespect the GAC has for any structure lower than the Board. For them to acknowledge our work would be for them to acknowledge that we have a role on a par with theirs. And governments never admit to being equal to any one else - only in the IGF have we seem some loosening of that in the general Internet governance arena. I expect that they really do not consider the Board their equals, but they put up with the things they need to put up with. They had a liaison with the Council in the past, but participation limited them and limited their ability to give advise that took no account of the work done in the GNSO. Early engagement is contradictory to reinforcing the power of their advice - which is their ultimate goal. I think we should continue to invite and encourage them to participate. Sooner or later one of them will take us seriously again - we have had some WG participants from GAC in the past, we may again some day. But we should also not fool ourselves into expecting them to take any supportive notice of our efforts. I have every respect for those of you doing the essential work on improving coordination between GAC and the GNSO, as I expect your main reward will be knowing you tried, as opposed to any real GAC early engagement. Hope I am wrong. avri On 21 Nov 2013, at 18:00, Thomas Rickert wrote: Nonetheless it is sad and I will say that I find it interesting to show respect to the GNSO's PDP work by working on ways to engage and then completely ignore work that is done in PDPs which is relevant to what they are deliberating. Thomas Am 21.11.2013 um 17:17 schrieb "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>: Remember that they never thought we should be considering this. :( Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 3:11 PM To: Glen de Saint Géry Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique All, sadly, the GAC communique includes Advise on IGO/INGOs, but does not mention the GNSO's PDP WG or the motion that passed. Thomas ============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0 Am 21.11.2013 um 16:57 schrieb Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>>: FYI Attached please find the finalised GAC communique from Buenos Aires. The communique will be posted on the GAC Website later today. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org <FINAL_Buenos_Aires_GAC_Communique_20131120.pdf> _______________________________________________ gac mailing list gac@gac.icann.org<mailto:gac@gac.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) =========================================================== CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. =========================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message without making any copies. =========================================================== NOTIFICATION: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997). ===========================================================