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

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

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

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.)

Very helpful clarification Thomas. I think I agree that GAC Advice to WGs or the Council could create some problems, so maybe we should think in terms of GAC input. Then I think we are on the same page. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 11:14 AM To: John Berard Cc: Mike O'Connor; Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique 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.)

Mikey, since I only spoke about GAC Advice I did not expect to cause confusion. Otherwise I would have explained this more in the first place :-). I guess that Berry's contribution serves as an excellent example of early engagement. To your point whether this could provide an avenue for slightly less firm input: If my memory does not fail me, the GAC is currently contemplating at what stages during a PDP they should provide advice. Should they mean this to be in the format of what we now call GAC input, there would be no problems at all. Should they mean that such advice should have the implications of capital A GAC Advice, the issues I outlined might arise. This, I think the G-Council might wish to seek clarification on this or even come up with concrete proposals so that both the GAC as well as the G-Council can develop a common thinking on how early engagement should work. I guess we should encourage a low-hurdle communication during a PDP for the GAC. Maybe the GAC is also concerned about engaging early because they think we expect legally binding capital A Advice. Rather than speculating, maybe it would be good for Jonathan or some person(s) from the Council to enter into informal discussion to find out more about this. Thanks, Thomas Am 26.11.2013 um 13:30 schrieb "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com>:

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.)

Chuck, I agree. Thomas ============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0

Am 26.11.2013 um 20:05 schrieb "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:

I would caution against simply asking the GAC whether they meant capital A GAC Advice when they are talking about earlier interventions, because they might say yes, and I don't think that would work very well in the earlier stages of a WG. I think a better approach would be to suggest something like the following and then ask them if it makes sense and could possibly work: " GAC input in the earlier stages of a WG does not have to be formal advice, but it would be helpful to get some informal information like what issues they think may have public policy implications as well as any other input they have during PDP so that the WG could discuss it. If they could also provide a point of contact to interface with on the input they provide, that would be helpful. The input could come from individuals from the GAC who understand government concerns or it could come from a small informal group of interested GAC members participating in their individual capacities with a commitment to keep the full GAC informed. Of course GAC consensus input is also welcome as was done with the IGO-INGO but we understand that may not always be possible, especially early in a WG."

Chuck

-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 11:59 AM To: Mike O'Connor Cc: John Berard; Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique

Mikey, since I only spoke about GAC Advice I did not expect to cause confusion. Otherwise I would have explained this more in the first place :-).

I guess that Berry's contribution serves as an excellent example of early engagement.

To your point whether this could provide an avenue for slightly less firm input: If my memory does not fail me, the GAC is currently contemplating at what stages during a PDP they should provide advice. Should they mean this to be in the format of what we now call GAC input, there would be no problems at all.

Should they mean that such advice should have the implications of capital A GAC Advice, the issues I outlined might arise.

This, I think the G-Council might wish to seek clarification on this or even come up with concrete proposals so that both the GAC as well as the G-Council can develop a common thinking on how early engagement should work. I guess we should encourage a low-hurdle communication during a PDP for the GAC. Maybe the GAC is also concerned about engaging early because they think we expect legally binding capital A Advice.

Rather than speculating, maybe it would be good for Jonathan or some person(s) from the Council to enter into informal discussion to find out more about this.

Thanks, Thomas

...

Am 26.11.2013 um 13:30 schrieb "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com>:

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.)

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.)

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

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

...

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

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: particular position. policy recommendations is another. 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.)

Me too. Thanks. Amr Sent from mobile

On Nov 27, 2013, at 5:56 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote:

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

...

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

policy recommendations is another. 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.)

Thanks Brian, Our group looks to be settling as follows: GNSO Council (6) Chair Vice Chair 1 Vice Chair 2 3 x Councillors (Amr, Brian, Mickey) GAC (6) US Portugal UK Spain (2 reps alternating) Costa Rica Egypt Please expect a Doodle poll to see if we can get together in the next couple of weeks. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Winterfeldt, Brian J. [mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com] Sent: 28 November 2013 23:19 To: Amr Elsadr Cc: Mike O'Connor; <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). ===========================================================

You are correct Amr with regard to the two GAC participants in the P&I WG. Also, as you know but others on the Council may not, in our letter inviting participation by the GAC we told them about the two GAC participants and asked whether it might make sense to use them as informal liaisons with the GAC. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 12:19 PM To: Council GNSO 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 we'd like to encourage from the GAC, and I don't 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, I'd 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 I'm 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.)

hi all, thanks Marika. this is really helpful. one of the things i like about it is that it breaks the puzzle into smaller pieces, which may make it easier to figure out a solution. for example, i like the way that Suzanne Radell is proposing a number of steps in the PDP where the GAC might engage, and describing what each part of the dialog might look like. as i start to really think about this, i begin to come up with a list of differences between the needs of the GAC and the GNSO. maybe having a conversation about these choices is another way to break this puzzle up into smaller, more manageable pieces out of which a solution can be built. here's my first go at a list of dimensions -- by no means complete or correct. note: these relate to working groups, not the larger GNSO or its leadership structures. - definition of consensus GAC - no objections by any country? GNSO WG - "layered" definitions stated in the PDP Guidelines (ranging from full consensus to no consensus) - pace of work GAC - very intense work during ICANN meetings, much lower in between? GNSO WG - steady (usually weekly) work pace throughout the year, less activity during ICANN meetings - tradeoff between "rapid" and "rigorous" GAC - "rapid" trumps "rigor" (given the tight time constraints under which the GAC works)? GNSO WG - tradeoff is keenly felt by WG leaders but in general "rigor" trumps "rapid" in my view - ability to modify positions during discussion GAC - limited - representatives require ministerial approval? GNSO WG - encouraged - "going in positions" almost always change on the road to consensus questions for the Council: - are there more of these? - are there opportunities that these may present? i have a few ideas about that, but this post is long enough. mikey On Nov 26, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

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>

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