i'm in.

mikey


On Nov 27, 2013, at 10:51 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <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> 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

* One World. One Internet. *

-----Original Message-----

From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org>

Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 12:18 PM

To: Council GNSO <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> 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>

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>:

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>

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>

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>:

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] 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>:

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] On Behalf Of Thomas

Rickert

Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 3:11 PM

To: Glen de Saint Géry

Cc: 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>:

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 http://gnso.icann.org

<FINAL_Buenos_Aires_GAC_Communique_20131120.pdf>

_______________________________________________

gac mailing list

gac@gac.icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:

OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:

OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)