November 2014 - Gac-gnso-cg

Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] MP3 recording GAC / GNSO Consultation Group teleconference Tuesday 18 November 2014 1400 UTC
by Winterfeldt, Brian J. Dec. 2, 2014

Dec. 2, 2014

Dear All, I want to take this opportunity to share a few thoughts on our ongoing discussions. I agree that we cannot and should not continue to discuss early engagement in the abstract only. In addition, I agree that there is room for the GNSO to take on a more proactive role in early engagement of the GAC. A clearly defined set of triggers on the GNSO side is certainly a possibility. While it is true that the GNSO would not want to decide for the GAC in all cases whether an issue is deserving of the GAC's attention, there will most certainly be instances where the GNSO might know upfront that GAC input would be necessary, such as issues on which the GAC has provided advice in the past and issues that unambiguously relate to treaties or national laws. By way of example, discussion arose during the November 13, 2014 GNSO Council meeting concerning the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP Working Group Letter sent to Mason as GNSO Liaison to GAC. In the letter, the WG is proactively seeking Mason's assistance in engaging the GAC on certain issues raised by the GAC's Los Angeles Communiqué, namely, discrepancies between the GAC advice and the directives contained in the Working Group Charter. As I understand it, Mason is awaiting further instruction on how to proceed. This seems to me to be a great opportunity to refine and test the mechanisms we have been discussing for engagement and collaboration between the GAC and GNSO. In addition, there is one item that we did not discuss during the call this week but that I believe we should revisit - a GAC point person to serve as Mason's counterpart for day-to-day coordination. I may know one or two people who may be interested. In terms of planning for Singapore, I think it would be beneficial to have a face-to-face meeting of this group, perhaps in an informal setting over lunch. We can invite other members of our constituent groups along in an effort to generate greater support for the work of the CG. In a smaller, interactive setting, we may be able pinpoint more precisely the type and amount of information necessary for effective collaboration. I would be happy to reach out to Glen offline to determine the feasibility of planning the lunch. Thank you in advance for your consideration. I welcome your feedback on the above items. Best regards, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118 p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244 575 Madison Avenue / New York, NY 10022-2585 p / (212) 940.6762 f / (212) 894.5585 brian.winterfeldt(a)kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> / www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> ________________________________ From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces(a)icann.orgOn<mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.orgOn> Behalf OfTerri Agnew Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 5:34:26 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) To: gac-gnso-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] MP3 recording GAC / GNSO Consultation Group teleconference Tuesday 18 November 2014 1400 UTC Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GAC / GNSO Consultation Group teleconference held on Tuesday 18 November 2014 at 1400 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-gac-20141118-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Government Advisory Committee Manal Ismail - co-chair - Egypt Ana Neves, Portugal GNSO Council Brian Winterfeldt, Councilor David Cake, Vice Chair GNSO Liaison to the GAC: Mason Cole Apology: Amr Elsadr, Councilor Suzanne Radell, US Avri Doria, Councillor Jonathan Robinson, Chair ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Olof Nordling Glen de Saint Gery Karine Perset Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Public archives of the mailing list can be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/ Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Adobe Chat transcript: Marika Konings:Welcome to the GAC-GNSO CG meeting of 18 November 2014 Nathalie Peregrine:Brian Winterfeldt has joined the AC room Nathalie Peregrine:David cake has joined the call Ana Neves:sure Ana Neves:still listening... Marika Konings:See http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/decisions.htm for ccNSO decisions Marika Konings:You can see here the recommendation from the triage committee and the action taken by the ccNSO Council Marika Konings:Quickly skimming through it, it looks like that in almost all (if not all) cases, the ccNSO Council has followed the recommendation of the triage committee Marika Konings:OK, will do Ana Neves:keep the momentum is the motto, indeed... Ana Neves:Thank you and bye David Cake:Thak you =========================================================== 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). ===========================================================

6 9

Agenda for Tues. Dec. 2nd cc ..
by Manal Ismail Dec. 1, 2014

Dec. 1, 2014

Dear All .. Here is a suggested agenda for our upcoming call, on Tues. Dec. 2nd: 1. GAC counterpart to GNSO Liaison to the GAC 2. GAC Early engagement in new PDPs (discussion of the flow chart prepared by Marika, attached) 3. GAC-GNSO dialogue on ongoing topics (IGO/INGO as a pilot) 4. Fixing dates of upcoming calls (based on doodle results) 5. AoB Please let us know if you have any comments .. Kind Regards --Manal

3 2

REMINDER - Re: For your review & input - notes and doodle poll
by Marika Konings Nov. 24, 2014

Nov. 24, 2014

Please participate in the doodle poll if you have not done so yet (http://doodle.com/p6k57qd5qgz4t5e5) - so far we only have one confirmed participant for next week's meeting. Also, any comments on the notes below or draft quick look mechanism flow chart (see attached) are still welcome. Best regards, Marika From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday 18 November 2014 16:17 To: "gac-gnso-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg@icann.org>" <gac-gnso-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] For your review & input - notes and doodle poll Dear All, Please find below the notes of today's GAC-GNSO Consultation Group meeting. You are encouraged to review the notes as well as the attached draft quick look mechanism flow chart (see page 2) and provide any comments, questions or input you may have. The next meeting will be scheduled for Tuesday 2 December at 14.00 UTC. In order to assess whether there will be sufficient members to participate in the upcoming meeting as well as subsequent meetings leading up to Singapore, please complete the following doodle poll to confirm your availability: http://doodle.com/p6k57qd5qgz4t5e5. Best regards, Marika Notes 18 November 2014: Quick look / triage mechanism discussion- Confirm agreed upon points: * Focus on early engagement (Issue Report phase), does not preclude engagement in later stages, but focus is currently on early engagement * Focus is on GAC input - individual government input is already an option and GAC input does not necessarily replace that option * Need for early indication from the GAC whether the topic is of interest and input will be provided / want to remain informed / not of specific interest - although indication could change over time * Need to prioritize and streamline input by the GAC * Timing of quick - look mechanism: is that something that can be done between ICANN meetings or does that require GAC F2F meeting? Consider building in safeguard option that in principle it could be managed through online communications, but in specific circumstances a request could be made for the quick look mechanism to be discussed / considered during a GAC F2F meeting * Flexibility on the GNSO side to accomodate GAC if it has indicated it wants to provide input but needs more time to provide such input. PDP provides a lot of flexibility as it mainly refers to minimum duration, not maximum - important however to set expectations and allow for advance notice to ensure planning by GNSO Council and/or PDP WG. * Duration / timing of quick look mechanism could be a potential discussion point for GAC based on a more detailed strawman, as well as wether certain elements require F2F time or not. * Triggers on GNSO side to trigger the need for input on the GNSO side e.g. anything related to national laws, anything related to previous GAC advice. May not always be possible for GNSO to make such a determination - Council may be to inform the GAC about the issues it is working on so that the GAC can make this determination. Council cannot decide for the GAC whether an issue deserves its attention or not. GAC support staff might also be able to play a role here. Other discussion points: * What information would need to be provided for the GAC to consider quick look mechanism? GNSO Issue Report Request form could serve as a starting point. Could additions to this template be considered such as, for example, are you aware of GAC advice on this issue? Possible question to GAC: what information would be needed. Quesiton to the GNSO: could additional fields be added to the GNSO Issue Report Request Form. Question 7 could possibly be expanded to identify public policy considerations which may facilitate identification of GAC work on a certain issue? * Also ensure input from GAC support staff during the development of the Issue Report stage to ensure that all relevant information is included relating to existing GAC views on the topic. * Ask template used by ccNSO for their triage commitee - outcomes of this process can be viewed here: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/decisions.htm. * All encouraged to provide input on the draft quick look flow chart Singapore Planning * What does the group want to share with the GAC and GNSO in Singapore? * How to engage GNSO and GAC in conversations? Specific questions may assist in this effort. * Confirm next meetings on the list and conduct doodle poll to confirm that sufficient members are available to participate

1 0

For your review & input - notes and doodle poll
by Marika Konings Nov. 19, 2014

Nov. 19, 2014

Dear All, Please find below the notes of today's GAC-GNSO Consultation Group meeting. You are encouraged to review the notes as well as the attached draft quick look mechanism flow chart (see page 2) and provide any comments, questions or input you may have. The next meeting will be scheduled for Tuesday 2 December at 14.00 UTC. In order to assess whether there will be sufficient members to participate in the upcoming meeting as well as subsequent meetings leading up to Singapore, please complete the following doodle poll to confirm your availability: http://doodle.com/p6k57qd5qgz4t5e5. Best regards, Marika Notes 18 November 2014: Quick look / triage mechanism discussion- Confirm agreed upon points: * Focus on early engagement (Issue Report phase), does not preclude engagement in later stages, but focus is currently on early engagement * Focus is on GAC input - individual government input is already an option and GAC input does not necessarily replace that option * Need for early indication from the GAC whether the topic is of interest and input will be provided / want to remain informed / not of specific interest - although indication could change over time * Need to prioritize and streamline input by the GAC * Timing of quick - look mechanism: is that something that can be done between ICANN meetings or does that require GAC F2F meeting? Consider building in safeguard option that in principle it could be managed through online communications, but in specific circumstances a request could be made for the quick look mechanism to be discussed / considered during a GAC F2F meeting * Flexibility on the GNSO side to accomodate GAC if it has indicated it wants to provide input but needs more time to provide such input. PDP provides a lot of flexibility as it mainly refers to minimum duration, not maximum - important however to set expectations and allow for advance notice to ensure planning by GNSO Council and/or PDP WG. * Duration / timing of quick look mechanism could be a potential discussion point for GAC based on a more detailed strawman, as well as wether certain elements require F2F time or not. * Triggers on GNSO side to trigger the need for input on the GNSO side e.g. anything related to national laws, anything related to previous GAC advice. May not always be possible for GNSO to make such a determination - Council may be to inform the GAC about the issues it is working on so that the GAC can make this determination. Council cannot decide for the GAC whether an issue deserves its attention or not. GAC support staff might also be able to play a role here. Other discussion points: * What information would need to be provided for the GAC to consider quick look mechanism? GNSO Issue Report Request form could serve as a starting point. Could additions to this template be considered such as, for example, are you aware of GAC advice on this issue? Possible question to GAC: what information would be needed. Quesiton to the GNSO: could additional fields be added to the GNSO Issue Report Request Form. Question 7 could possibly be expanded to identify public policy considerations which may facilitate identification of GAC work on a certain issue? * Also ensure input from GAC support staff during the development of the Issue Report stage to ensure that all relevant information is included relating to existing GAC views on the topic. * Ask template used by ccNSO for their triage commitee - outcomes of this process can be viewed here: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/decisions.htm. * All encouraged to provide input on the draft quick look flow chart Singapore Planning * What does the group want to share with the GAC and GNSO in Singapore? * How to engage GNSO and GAC in conversations? Specific questions may assist in this effort. * Confirm next meetings on the list and conduct doodle poll to confirm that sufficient members are available to participate

2 1

MP3 recording GAC / GNSO Consultation Group teleconference Tuesday 18 November 2014 1400 UTC
by Terri Agnew Nov. 18, 2014

Nov. 18, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GAC / GNSO Consultation Group teleconference held on Tuesday 18 November 2014 at 1400 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-gac-20141118-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Government Advisory Committee Manal Ismail - co-chair - Egypt Ana Neves, Portugal GNSO Council Brian Winterfeldt, Councilor David Cake, Vice Chair GNSO Liaison to the GAC: Mason Cole Apology: Amr Elsadr, Councilor Suzanne Radell, US Avri Doria, Councillor Jonathan Robinson, Chair ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Olof Nordling Glen de Saint Gery Karine Perset Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Public archives of the mailing list can be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/ Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Adobe Chat transcript: Marika Konings:Welcome to the GAC-GNSO CG meeting of 18 November 2014 Nathalie Peregrine:Brian Winterfeldt has joined the AC room Nathalie Peregrine:David cake has joined the call Ana Neves:sure Ana Neves:still listening... Marika Konings:See http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/decisions.htm for ccNSO decisions Marika Konings:You can see here the recommendation from the triage committee and the action taken by the ccNSO Council Marika Konings:Quickly skimming through it, it looks like that in almost all (if not all) cases, the ccNSO Council has followed the recommendation of the triage committee Marika Konings:OK, will do Ana Neves:keep the momentum is the motto, indeed... Ana Neves:Thank you and bye David Cake:Thak you

1 0

FW: [Ntfy-gac-gnso-cg] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation: GAC GNSO Consultation Meeting, Tuesday 18 November 2014 at 14:00 UTC
by Manal Ismail Nov. 18, 2014

Nov. 18, 2014

Re-sending on behalf of Suzanne (and myself J) as the below message did not get through .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Suzanne Radell [mailto:SRadell@ntia.doc.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 1:29 AM To: ntfy-gac-gnso-cg(a)icann.org Subject: FW: [Ntfy-gac-gnso-cg] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation: GAC GNSO Consultation Meeting, Tuesday 18 November 2014 at 14:00 UTC Hi everyone, as per my email exchange with Manal, we both thought the whole group might be interested in it, so I'm sending it along. With apologies as well for not being able to join you tomorrow. I am looking forward to your thoughts on this chain. Best regards, Suz Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor NTIA/Office of International Affairs PH: 202-482-3167 FX: 202-482-1865 ________________________________ From: Manal Ismail [manal(a)tra.gov.eg] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 5:10 PM To: Suzanne Radell Cc: Mason Cole; jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Subject: Re: [Ntfy-gac-gnso-cg] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation: GAC GNSO Consultation Meeting, Tuesday 18 November 2014 at 14:00 UTC I'm fine with either .. Maybe forwarding the whole thread is better to ensure everyone is on the same page .. --Manal Sent from my iPhone On Nov 18, 2014, at 12:01 AM, "Suzanne Radell" <SRadell(a)ntia.doc.gov> wrote: Thanks again, Manal, for coming back to me prior to tomorrow's call. Shall I just forward this entire chain to the whole group? Or just my email to you and Jonathan? Just let me know and I can get it out later this evening. Cheers, Suz From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 1:48 AM To: Suzanne Radell Cc: Mason Cole; jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Subject: RE: [Ntfy-gac-gnso-cg] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation: GAC GNSO Consultation Meeting, Tuesday 18 November 2014 at 14:00 UTC Dear Suzanne .. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and sorry you won't be able to join the coming call .. I fully agree with you that GAC colleagues, and even the whole ICANN community, are fully utilized by the IANA transition and ICANN accountability processes and that we have to be very specific in what we ask for in order to expect responses .. To me, triggering the discussion and encouraging GAC responses, I believe, should be through sharing a concrete proposal (well-thought through by the group, including GAC members with GNSO experience like yourself and Mark) with specific questions that we may have, or may suggest, to brainstorm on the proposal .. I also believe that, optimally, this should be shared well in advance of the Singapore meeting .. Such discussion may end by adopting the proposal as is, agreeing to the proposal with certain amendments, or proposing a completely different approach or mechanism .. but to trigger the discussion we have to have something on the table .. Having said that, I'm flexible and willing to follow any approach we agree upon .. I fully agree with your proposal that "we could consider providing more concrete information and/or context by using a straw man as a means of testing some of the concepts we're discussing" .. but I thought a pre-requisite to this testing would be agreeing on the details of what we intend to test .. So allow me to seek further clarification on how can we demonstrate this quick-look Triage committee mechanism in practice .. Let me also share with you what Marika shared (off-list for the time being), the attached 'GNSO Issue Report Request Form' and the 'ccNSO Triage Committee process' with further information at: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/decisions.htm .. I believe both documents, in addition to the GAC one-pagers available at: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Early+Engagement+Policy+Docu ments, may help in coming up with the information the GAC needs to decide whether a certain issue, to be discussed by the GNSO, is of interest .. I do see your point on triggers at the GNSO side, and look forward to hearing their view on this .. Meanwhile I don't think this would override the need for a quick-look mechanism, as the GAC may still receive multiple requests from the GNSO side that need to be prioritized, or have I missed something? Finally, please feel free to share on the list for the sake of time and for the sake of making sure we are all on the same page before the call, particularly that you won't be on this call and I'm keen to have your views considered, as early as possible, to make sure we're progressing .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Suzanne Radell [mailto:SRadell@ntia.doc.gov] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 1:36 AM To: Manal Ismail Cc: Mason Cole Subject: RE: [Ntfy-gac-gnso-cg] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation: GAC GNSO Consultation Meeting, Tuesday 18 November 2014 at 14:00 UTC I should have thought of that myself, Manal, so thank you and I'm now cc'ing Mason on this message. Cheers, Suz Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor NTIA/Office of International Affairs PH: 202-482-3167 FX: 202-482-1865 ________________________________ From: Manal Ismail [manal(a)tra.gov.eg] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 5:02 PM To: Suzanne Radell Subject: Re: [Ntfy-gac-gnso-cg] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation: GAC GNSO Consultation Meeting, Tuesday 18 November 2014 at 14:00 UTC Hi Suzanne .. Many thanks for sharing your thoughts .. It's a bit late for me to provide an equally thorough response to your email, but I'm wondering whether it would be ok with you if we cc Mason on this .. I think Jonathan is quite busy and has been away for some time .. I believe Mason may be in a position to provide a GNSO view on this, as I'm worried we might not hear from Jonathan in due time before the call .. Please let me know what you think .. Kind Regards --Manal Sent from my iPhone On Nov 13, 2014, at 9:35 PM, "Suzanne Radell" <SRadell(a)ntia.doc.gov> wrote: Hi Jonathan and Manal, before going out to the whole group, I wanted to send along a heads up that I will not be able to join next Tuesday's call as I'll be on a panel that morning. As I was called away to an unexpected meeting for the last call, I'm mindful of becoming woefully behind. I did want to share an impression from the notes or recap of the most recent call, which is that we may either be at or nearing a point in our group deliberations where we are further ahead of our respective communities than we might like to be. I'm fairly confident that the near silence we're hearing on the GAC side is not at all due to disinterest; rather, I think a majority of our colleagues don't know what it is we want from them. Not to mention the fact that the two highest priorities on everyone's plate right now are the IANA transition and ICANN accountability processes. So I'm wondering if we could consider providing more concrete information and/or context by using a straw man as a means of testing some of the concepts we're discussing. For example, wouldn't the concept of a triage committee for the GAC have more resonance is we could demonstrate how it would actually work (e.g. vice theoretically) in practice? And I remain very keen to know whether, on the GNSO side, we could reach agreement on some triggers that would be used at the outset (e.g. at the time of a request for an Issues Report) to determine whether to engage the GAC at that moment in time? My proposals for near term testing in terms of triggers would be anything related to international treaties that governments sign and national laws. If whatever the GNSO determined might require a PDP did touch on treaties or national laws, would it make sense to have an exchange between the GNSO and the GAC from the beginning? This isn't happening now, and the assumption seems to be that it's up to the GAC to provide comments when the Issues Report is actually posted. We have previous examples where this should have happened, but did not (e.g. IGO-INGO protections). The counter argument could be made that the GNSO could have easily engaged the GAC on its own initiative, since this particular PDP was initiated after the GAC had provided advice. We are arguably/hopefully trying to avoid these situations in the future, which suggests some change in our respective work cultures/habits. I look forward to your thoughts on this, as well as on any other work I could/should be taking on at the moment. In terms of preparing for Singapore, I also think we should consider a slightly different approach to updating the GAC and the GNSO. Quite candidly, I don't know how the GNSO updates are structured, but the GAC exchanges aren't triggering exchanges per se; it's the Consultation Group providing an update. So I'd like to explore some alternatives with you before proposing ideas to the rest of the group. Thanks in advance, and best regards, Suz Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA sradell(a)ntia.doc.gov 202-482-3167

2 2

Agenda for Tues. Nov. 18th cc ..
by Manal Ismail Nov. 18, 2014

Nov. 18, 2014

Dear All .. Please find attached a suggested agenda for today's call .. 1. Adoption of suggested agenda 2. Continue quick-look / Triage mechanism discussion 3. Preparation for Singapore 4. AoB I'm also attaching: * GNSO Issue Report Request Form, brought to our attention by Marika * ccNSO Prioritisation Process, brought to our attention by Marika (more details available at: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/decisions.htm) * A sample of the monthly one-pagers circulated to the GAC by Olof (also available at: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Early+Engagement+Policy+Docu ments+-+November+2014) I believe the 3 documents may guide our discussion on information needed / process followed for a quick-look mechanism .. Looking forward to our call later today .. Kind Regards --Manal

1 0

FW: For your review - notes from today's meeting
by Marika Konings Nov. 10, 2014

Nov. 10, 2014

Resending as I don¹t think my message went through yesterday. Best regards, Marika From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday 4 November 2014 16:19 To: "gac-gnso-cg(a)icann.org" <gac-gnso-cg-bounces(a)icann.org> Subject: For your review - notes from today's meeting GNSO Operating Rules and Procedures Dear All, Please find below the notes from today¹s meeting. For those that were able to join, please review and let me know if I¹ve missed anything. For those that were not able to join, please review and share with the list if you have any additional views or comments. The next meeting will be scheduled for Tuesday 18 November at 15.00 UTC. >From there, we¹ll continue with our meetings every two weeks please let us know ahead of time if there are any meetings that you cannot make so we can plan accordingly should there be more members unavailable for certain dates. Best regards, Marika Notes 4 November 2014: Taking stock of LA meeting: * Session with full committee was very timely - opening of dialogue between GAC-GNSO very useful * Hope for more GAC engagement over coming months as modalities are defined * New GAC Chair also recognises the importance of this initiative * Hopefully this will result in additional participants in this effort Update on Work Tracks * Reminder on deliverables of charter which have resulted in the two work tracks (1) A documented process (table, flow chart, etc.) for ongoing smooth and timely information exchange between the GAC and the GNSO organizations (GNSO Liaison to the GAC , permanent liaison/consultative group, etc.) 2) An agreed documented process (table, flow chart, etc.) for ongoing smooth early engagement of GAC in GNSO PDP projects; along with an agreed documented procedure to be followed where GAC early input is in conflict with a GNSO proposal and a mutual agreement could not be reached * PDP Work Track: little progress has been made, but also noting the link between the other track. Some work has been done on possible early engagement opportunities in the PDP, but further discussions / input are needed. Commitment would be needed from both sides to make possible changes work, but would ideally be light touches to the process. May be time to put to the GAC the quick look mechanism approach - the earlier the GAC has an opportunity to express its view or indicate its interest to be engaged, the better. Suggestion for GAC members to consider putting together proposal for Quick Look Mechanism for GAC consideration - timing will be crucial as information would need to be provided prior to GAC meetings so that quick look mechanism could be employed and feedback could possibly be provided via GNSO liaison. Outcome of quick look mechanism could also be recorded as part of the GAC communique. What happens if PDP work advances to next stage before GAC is able to provide input - is that an issue or can it be taken into account as part of a next phase? Initial idea of quick look mechanism is to provide an indication during the Issue Report phase of whether there are public policy implications, not necessarily substantive input which will be more important when the GNSO PDP WG commences its deliberations and as such may not take as much time as the preparation of substantive input which ideally would contain detail as well as rationale. Alternatively, if more time is needed, GAC could already be informed immediately following the request for an Issue Report, instead of once the Preliminary Issue Report is posted for public comment. Quick look mechanism could potentially be developed intersessional but without being binding but providing important guidance to both the GNSO and the GAC. Decision on outcome of a quick look mechanism check probably will need to be made during an ICANN meeting, may not be possible intersessionally. If the decision is that there are likely public policy implications, this could trigger the formation of a GAC committee to develop substantive input to provide input by the time the PDP WG is formed. Preliminary Issue Report may not be necessary for trigger quick look mechanism, possibly a short description (1-2 pages) of the issue could be sufficient for the GAC to consider the issue (noted that GAC could always revise its view based on additional information coming available). Counterpart inside the GAC for day-to-day contact * Would be helpful to have a day-to-day co-ordination point for Mason - peer to peer relationship with GAC member(s) * If this relates to forwarding / sharing information, this could be done via Olof * One of the five vice-chairs could be awarded this responsibility? Consider suggesting this to Thomas. Day-to-day Co-ordination * See latest version of day-to-day co-ordination document as well as suggestion during F2F meeting for a possible joint WG. * Continue discussion on the list Agree on call schedule * Proposal to continue with meetings every two weeks - next meeting to be scheduled for 18 November at 14.00 UTC. * All encouraged to indicate ahead of meetings if not available

2 1

MP3 recording GAC / GNSO Consultation Group teleconference Tuesday 04 November 2014 1400 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Nov. 4, 2014

Nov. 4, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GAC / GNSO Consultation Group teleconference held on Tuesday 04 November 2014 at 1400 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-gac-20141104-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Government Advisory Committee Mark Carvell, UK GNSO Council Amr Elsadr, Councilor David Cake, Councilor, Brian Winterfeldt, Councilor GNSO Liaison to the GAC: Mason Cole Apology: Volker Greimann, Vice Chair Avri Doria - Councillor - NCSG Jonathan Robinson, Chair Manal Ismail - co-chair - Egypt Ana Neves, Portugal ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Olof Nordling Julia Charvolen Karine Perset Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Public archives of the mailing list can be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/ Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Adobe Chat transcript: Marika Konings:Welcome to GAC-GNSO Consultation Group Meeting of 4 November 2014 Mason Cole:Good morning, good afternoon all Nathalie Peregrine:Hello Mason! Brian Winterfeldt:Good morning! Nathalie Peregrine:Hello Brian! Mark Carvell:Hello from London! Brian Winterfeldt:Hi Nathalie. Brian Winterfeldt:Thanks for all your reminders about the call! Nathalie Peregrine:David Cake has joined the AC room David Cake:Good morning (well evening here), sorry I'm late had technical issues with AC loading Nathalie Peregrine:Amr Elsadr has also joined Mason Cole:Hello Amr! Amr Elsadr:Hi. Apologies for being so late. On the AC audio now. Amr Elsadr:@Mark: I appreciate the timing issue, which is why I wouldn't mind a little accomodation to that challenge from the GNSO side. However, assurances need to be provided that the GAC is also committed to trying to make this work. Nathalie Peregrine:Suzanne Radell has just sent in her apologies for this call Amr Elsadr:If it is agreed that GAC input will be provided at the PDP working group stage, the need for intersessional decision-making will not be necessary. I mean at least for a first step. Marika Konings:Maybe we could think of a template of what information would need to be provided to the GAC in order to be able to trigger the quick look mechanism? This is something that then could be prepared at the same time as the request for an Issue Report is being considered by the GNSO Council and submitted immediately following approval by the GNSO Council of a request for an Issue Report? Brian Winterfeldt:I support Mason having a colleague on the GAC who can serve as a direct connection for communication between Mason and the GAC. David Cake:Not even just GAC members busy this week. Some GNSO people in Busan too. David Cake:OK by me. Brian Winterfeldt:Thank you Mason and Marika! Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Brian Winterfeldt:Thank you all. Mark Carvell:Just checked my diary - I'm travelling to Strasbourg on the 18th.

1 0

Tomorrow's meeting
by Mason Cole Nov. 4, 2014

Nov. 4, 2014

Good afternoon / evening all -- Manal let me know neither she nor Jonathan are available for tomorrow's call, and asked if I could chair in their stead. I'm happy to do so, and suggest the draft agenda that follows. Please let me know if there are additions or edits anyone would like to make. Thanks, and looking forward to the meeting tomorrow. Regards, Mason 1. Taking stock of LA 2. Update on work tracks (intro by Marika) a. PDP work track (Amr, Suzanne) i. Triage group for the GAC ii. Mason counterpart inside the GAC for day-to-day contact iii. Quick look mechanism b. Day-to-day coordination (intro from Marika) i. Creation of GAC-GNSO working group 3. Agree on call schedule 4. AOB Mason Cole VP Communications & Industry Relations Donuts Inc. ………………………………………… mason(a)donuts.co Ofc +1 503 908 7623 Cell +1 503 407 2555

2 1