To add, these are exactly some of the questions that the small committee
consisting of the GNSO Leadership and GAC representatives will be trying
to address in relation to the early engagement discussion. Attached you
will find the document that Jonathan circulated on 7 November that
identifies similar questions in relation to the proposal that was put
forward by Suzanne Radell, the US GAC representative. Based on the
feedback from Thomas, there may be additional questions that could/should
be added?

Best regards,

Marika

On 26/11/13 17:14, "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.)

<GAC Engagement in GNSO PDP - updated 30 Oct 2013[1].doc>