Thanks Philippe for sending this around.

 

Dear Councilors,

 

Just to provide some more information, I wanted to provide some additional context and a couple of changes I would like to see discussed.  I was provided this document on Monday and did get the chance to provide some feedback, some of which resulted in changes.  In addition, it is my understanding that Philippe met with GAC Leadership to discuss their view of the role and the performance of the current Liaison and my understanding is that the GAC was happy with the role (and my performance) and that they did not have changes to recommend at this time in terms of how the Liaison interacts with the GAC.  The GAC point of contact, however, relayed to me that it was their intention to start inviting the Liaison to intersessional meetings that involved GNSO issues (which is provided for in the description, but is not something they have historically done).

 

With respect to this document:

 

  1. One of the changes I recommended, which was not put into the draft, because it would require discussion with not only the Council, but also the SG/C Leaders, is the way that the Liaison is appointed.  This is the only position evaluated by the SSC (I believe) where a nomination must come from an SG/C Leader, but also requires that the person nominated then fill out a long expression of interest statement.  When I applied last year, everyone was confused.  I submitted the information required, but it was rejected because the form (which only I could fill out) was submitted by me instead of an SG/C chair.  So I had to fill out the form again, print it out, scan it via e-mail to SG/C leaders and ask that one of them actually submit the application to the GNSO Secretariat.  This required the leader to essentially take the document I did and send it to the Secretariat.  It was inefficient, time consuming, and frankly may have scared anyone else away from applying (as I was the only applicant).  Here is what I would propose take its place:

 

Any person can submit an application, which should include at a minimum…..[the stuff currently in #1].   These applications should be made available to all Stakeholder Group/Constituencies, etc. so that the SGs/Cs can choose to provide comments on a candidate and/or endorse a candidate.  SG/Cs are not required to provide comments and/or an endorsement, but any comments and/or endorsement that are submitted must be taken into consideration by the SSC.

 

This would allow for SG/C input, take away all the current inefficiencies, and would be a LOT less confusing.

 

  1. There is still confusion over the sentence “Liaise with GNSO policy staff who may assist, as needed, in the preparation of briefing materials and/or responses to questions.”  ICANN Staff has one interpretation which as we discussed several meetings ago, is at odds with the way others interpret it.  Therefore, I would like to see this resolved.  The GAC has made it clear (appropriately) that the Liaison should not see any items of strategy in the briefing notes or things that are sensitive to GAC discussions.  That said, in my conversations with the GAC Point of Contact, if we wanted to insert the “GNSO View” on certain issues, that this should not be an issue.  This is because the briefing by ICANN staff are purely factual and do not contain any “GNSO spin”, context or in some cases, the rationale.  ICANN staff rightfully does not believe that they can draft that kind of thing as the Secretariat because they need to be neutral.  But the GNSO Council and/or the Liaison can.

 

I strongly encourage you to read the briefing notes from the last meeting (https://gac.icann.org/briefing-materials/icann71-gac-briefings-v1.pdf).  Take a look at page 17 of 23 (in the PDF it is page 23] to see the short discussion on GNSO activity on DNS Abuse.  When I read it, it left me with the impression that the GNSO Council ignored the GAC’s proposals submitted in 2019 (which I didn’t even know about since they were proposals submitted to the previous Council) and that we essentially had not intended to follow up on any of the issues.

 

ICANN Org also added a new section in the briefing documents asking “Questions for GAC Representative Consideration.”  I am not saying that there is anything wrong with ICANN Org doing this, but unless you read the documents after the fact, you would never know these questions were asked.  If you look at page 33 of the PDF, you will see examples of questions ICANN Org asked when discussing SubPro….it related solely to IDNs.   Again, this may produce interesting information and I think it would be helpful for the GNSO to get some of this information.

 

  1. Minor last point – We should be clear that the Annual Report of the Liaison should be timed to be the document deadline for the Annual Meeting as the current provision does not say when the annual report should be delivered.

 

Depending on how these discussions go, I am still evaluating whether or not to seek another term as the Liaison.  As I expressed to Council Leadership, when I decide to take a role, I only do so because I believe I can make a difference.  I believe I have made a difference especially in how we communicate with the GAC.  I have enjoyed unprecedented access to GAC meetings not only to observe, but to participate.  I have tried to educate GAC members not only on GNSO positions, but also the important “why” these are the positions.  Although I have found that many GAC members are well informed about actual outputs from the GNSO, the rationale for these outputs is not always known or understood.  I have tried to offer opportunities for GNSO Working Group leaders to present to the GAC, and I have had great exchanges with the GAC Point of Contact and in planning for ICANN meetings.  More on that as we get closer to ICANN 72. 

 

Thank you for reading and considering these comments.

 

Sincerely,

Jeff

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Founder & CEO

JJN Solutions, LLC

p: +1.202.549.5079

E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com

http://jjnsolutions.com

 

 

From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of philippe.fouquart--- via council
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 6:27 AM
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] GNSO liaison to the GAC - Proposed updates

 

Dear Councilors,

 

As you may recall, Council leadership took as an action item to develop proposed language to further clarify the role and expectations in relation to the GNSO Council Liaison to the GAC from the perspective of the Council. Based on the input received during the different discussions, you will find attached our proposed updates.

 

As a reminder, the original document describing the role and responsibilities of the GNSO Liaison to the GAC was developed by the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group many years ago  (2014) and used to launch the first call for applications to fill the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Throughout the years, several updates were made, for example, to reflect that the SSC has been assigned the responsibility to review the applications, the change from F2F to virtual meetings and the requirement to provide an annual report to the Council. These updates and some further proposed updates have also been reflected in the form of redline changes in the attached. However, we would like to request you to focus your attention on the changes highlighted in yellow, which, per the Council’s discussion, aim to further clarify the Council’s expectations with regard to the Liaison’s responsibility and interaction with the Council. Leadership has also suggested some updates to the renewal section to bring it more in line with other appointments.

 

As this does not affect the Liaison’s responsibilities towards the GAC, we don’t anticipate a formal consultation with the GAC is necessary about these changes, but as part of ongoing conversations with the GAC leadership, we will update our GAC counterpart accordingly.

 

Please share any feedback or suggestions you may have via the mailing list by 5 September  2021. Hopefully we can resolve and address any comments or suggestions you may have online so that we can formally accept this updated version at one of our September Council meeting.

 

Best regards,

 

Philippe

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
 
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.