- Gac-gnso-cg - lists.icann.org

Meeting Agenda - October 7th 2014
by Jonathan Robinson Oct. 12, 2014

Oct. 12, 2014

All, Having talked with Manal, Marika & Olof, it seems we need to cover the following: 1. Review Agenda 2. Content of the GNSO / GAC Meeting a. Presentation - Structure, content & objectives b. Input from Mason Cole 3. Agenda for the face to face meeting of the CG 4. AOB Look forward to seeing you at 13h00 UTC today. Jonathan

4 6

Slides for joint GNSO-GAC meeting
by Marika Konings Oct. 11, 2014

Oct. 11, 2014

Dear All, Please find attached the proposed slides for the joint GNSO-GAC meeting scheduled for tomorrow from 15.00 16.30 in Plaza Pavilion. Note that some minor revisions may be made ahead of the meeting. Best regards, Marika

1 0

MP3 recording GAC / GNSO Consultation Group teleconference Tuesday 07 October 2014 1300 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 7, 2014

Oct. 7, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GAC / GNSO Consultation Group teleconference held on Tuesday 07 October 2014 at 1300 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-gac-20141007-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#oct The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Government Advisory Committee Ana Neves, Portugal Mark Carvell, UK Manal Ismail - co-chair - Egypt GNSO Council Avri Doria - Councillor - NCSG Jonathan Robinson, Chair GNSO Liaison to the GAC: Mason Cole Apology: Volker Greimann, Vice Chair Suzanne Radell - USA Amr Elsadr, Councillor ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Olof Nordling 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: Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the GAC-GNSO CG meeting of 7th October 2014 Jonathan Robinson:Hi All Olof Nordling:Hello from Brussels! Mason Cole:Good morning from the US Nathalie Peregrine:noted, thanks Nathalie Peregrine:Mark Carvell has joined the call Mark Carvell:Sorry for late joining - was unable to get onthe call for a while. Mark Carvell:I think probably less than an hour - 40 mins max. fiollowed by 40 mins on IANA issues. lloe Manal:Apologies for the late joining .. Ana Neves:yes, it's a good idea... to revisit this later Olof Nordling:Remember that we have interpretation in the GAC - that tends to slow down presentations Ana Neves:nope Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome Manal! Manal:thanks Nathalie .. Marika Konings:See http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-1830-gac-gnso for F2F meeting details Mark Carvell:Olof: GAC agenda says "Wellington" room. Marika Konings:@Mark - that is interesting as the schedule doesn't even seem to have a Wellington room ;-) Manal:Thanks Jonathan .. Avri Doria:thanks bye Manal:Thanks all .. Ana Neves:Thanks & Bye Manal:see you in LA .. Mason Cole:Thanks all Mark Carvell:thanks all folks!

1 0

Meeting - October 7th 2014
by Amr Elsadr Oct. 7, 2014

Oct. 7, 2014

Hi, Apologies for the late notice, but I have another appointment that conflicts with today’s call, so I won’t be able to make it. Thanks. Amr

1 0

List of questions for LA ..
by Manal Ismail Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

Dear Suzanne .. Thanks again for today's constructive discussion .. I'm not sure if you were still on the call when I requested your kind assistance in drafting the questions you have suggested we share with our constituencies in LA, but I would highly appreciate if you do .. It will also be extremely helpful if you were able to share them prior to our next call so that we can discuss those questions, along with other material we may want to share, such as the survey results .. I hope we can manage to leave the call for fine tuning and final adoption of the material, as there will be no time for further iterations .. Kind Regards --Manal

2 2

Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Notes from today's meeting
by Manal Ismail Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

Many thanks Marika .. Kind Regards --Manal From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 5:09 PM To: gac-gnso-cg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Notes from today's meeting Dear All, Please find below the notes from today's GAC-GNSO Consultation Group meeting. If I've missed anything, please feel free to add. Best regards, Marika Notes 23/9: Welcome to GNSO Liaison to the GAC * Confirm GAC agenda when available to Mason, including which meetings are closed * Consider when / how introductions should be made during the ICANN meeting Day-to-day work / PDP Track * Document (day-to-day work track) is not intended to be presented / shared in LA - to be used to capture brainstorming / ideas and derive from there suggestions to be shared in LA * What triggers are there on the GNSO side that would 'require' involvement of the GAC, for example previous GAC advice, link of issue to national laws? * Joint committee of some form could facilitate such two-way conversation as well as identifying when public policy issues are involved (what role can the GNSO play in this, what role does the GAC have). Need to discuss how this could be done in a pilot format. Possible permanent changes could/would need to be reflected in the GNSO Operating Procedures. Further conversations in both the GAC and GNSO may be helpful to obtain input. * Need to prepare well for the discussion in LA as not everyone may have followed this conversation as closely * Consider sharing examples of current briefing documents and papers with GAC to obtain more concrete input on how these can be improved / modified. * Consider putting forward ideas / suggestions for consideration and obtain input from both communities which may provide further guidance on how to work out some of those ideas in further detail * Proposal to slow things further down may not be well received - mapping out processes in tandem (GNSO and GAC) may give a better indication if/how/when additional time may be needed * Early stages of PDP are fairly slow - maybe question is to refocus GAC attention on those phases instead of when recommendations are already fairly baked. * Ability for GAC to identify experts on certain issues could greatly facilitate work on topics that are considered to have an impact on public policy Other * Next meeting scheduled for 7 October * Discuss materials for LA meeting on mailing list * Work on agenda for F2F meeting for LA

1 0

MP3 recording GAC / GNSO Consultation Group teleconference Tuesday 23 September 2014 1300 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GAC / GNSO Consultation Group teleconference held on Tuesday 23 September 2014 at 1300 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-gac-20140923-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep 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 Suzanne Radell - USA Ana Neves, Portugal GNSO Council Amr Elsadr, Councillor David Cake, Vice Chair GNSO Liaison to the GAC: Mason Cole Apology: Jonathan Robinson, Chair Mark Carvell, UK Avri Doria - Councillor - NCSG Volker Greimann, Vice Chair ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Julia Charvolen Olof Nordling 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: Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the GAC-GNSO CG meeting of 23 September > Nathalie Peregrine:Amr Elsadr has joined the cal > Nathalie Peregrine: call > Manal:Hi Amr .. > Amr Elsadr:Hi Manal. So sorry I'm late. Lost track of time. Dialling in >now. > Amr Elsadr:Just joined the call. Apologies again for being so late. > Nathalie Peregrine:David Cake is on the audio bridge > Amr Elsadr:I think Suzanne is making a lot of sense. This is about >syncing two processes, not having one accomodate the other. > Manal:Agree Amr & Suzanne .. > Suzanne Radell:I agree with Ana in terms of needing more context and >framing of issues/processes for our GAC colleagues > Marika Konings:F2F meeting has been scheduled for Sunday from 18.30 - >19.30 (see http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-1830-gac-gnso) > Amr Elsadr:I won't be in LA, but would like to participate remotely if >this option will be available. > Ana Neves:Oh, ok! Great! Thanks, Marika. > Marika Konings:@Amr - very sorry to hear you won't be able to attend, >but I do believe remote participation should be available. > Amr Elsadr:Great thanks. > Amr Elsadr:Yes. There is a process to make amendments to the process. :) > Ana Neves:Absolutely! Totally on the same page with Suz. > David Cake:It is rare that anyone is worried the GNSO is too fast! > Amr Elsadr:We may need to come to terms that some forms of early >engagment may not be too feasible. Example: A PDP is identified during >the issue report phase, but the GAC doesn't have time to comment on the >initial report, but works with the GNSO to be prepared to provide input >during the chartering of the PDP working group. Just a thought. > Marika Konings:@Amr - I think you are referring to the Issue Report, >not the Initial Report? > Amr Elsadr:Sorry. I should have been clearer. I meant comment to the >initial issue report, as opposed to the final issue report for which >there is not public comment. > David Cake:Absolutely with Suzanne on the volume. EWG is an excellent >example - a huge piece of policy work coming down the pipe. > David Cake:That will have public policy implications. > Amr Elsadr:@David: +1. The upcoming post-EWG PDP might be a good place >to start a test run. > Amr Elsadr:Actually, this PDP is past the issue report phase, isn't it? >It's a bit confusing becasue it's an ad-hoc process. Now wondering if >it's a good idea. > Nathalie Peregrine:Mason Cole has joined the AC room > Marika Konings:@Amr - that is correct. > Manal:Hi Mason .. > Amr Elsadr:Sorry Suzanne, I wasn't around back then but I imagine >you're right. > Manal:welcome to the call .. > Amr Elsadr:Hi Mason. > Amr Elsadr:Marika just asked the question/concern I was going to raise. > Mason Cole:Hi all...apologies for my late arrival > Suzanne Radell:I would have to say "no" to David's question as to >whether the participation of one GAC member means the GNSO is getting a >"GAC" perspective > Olof Nordling:Welcome on board, Mason! > Mason Cole:Thanks Olof! > Amr Elsadr:Yeah, Mason. You're in it now!! :) > Suzanne Radell:Apologies all, but I need to drop off and get on another >call. Thanks for a very constructive exchange. > Mason Cole:Happy to be in : ) > Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. > Ana Neves:Thank you all. Bye > Manal:Thank you all .. bye .. > David Cake:Thank you all

1 0

Notes from today's meeting
by Marika Konings Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

Dear All, Please find below the notes from today's GAC-GNSO Consultation Group meeting. If I've missed anything, please feel free to add. Best regards, Marika Notes 23/9: Welcome to GNSO Liaison to the GAC * Confirm GAC agenda when available to Mason, including which meetings are closed * Consider when / how introductions should be made during the ICANN meeting Day-to-day work / PDP Track * Document (day-to-day work track) is not intended to be presented / shared in LA - to be used to capture brainstorming / ideas and derive from there suggestions to be shared in LA * What triggers are there on the GNSO side that would 'require' involvement of the GAC, for example previous GAC advice, link of issue to national laws? * Joint committee of some form could facilitate such two-way conversation as well as identifying when public policy issues are involved (what role can the GNSO play in this, what role does the GAC have). Need to discuss how this could be done in a pilot format. Possible permanent changes could/would need to be reflected in the GNSO Operating Procedures. Further conversations in both the GAC and GNSO may be helpful to obtain input. * Need to prepare well for the discussion in LA as not everyone may have followed this conversation as closely * Consider sharing examples of current briefing documents and papers with GAC to obtain more concrete input on how these can be improved / modified. * Consider putting forward ideas / suggestions for consideration and obtain input from both communities which may provide further guidance on how to work out some of those ideas in further detail * Proposal to slow things further down may not be well received - mapping out processes in tandem (GNSO and GAC) may give a better indication if/how/when additional time may be needed * Early stages of PDP are fairly slow - maybe question is to refocus GAC attention on those phases instead of when recommendations are already fairly baked. * Ability for GAC to identify experts on certain issues could greatly facilitate work on topics that are considered to have an impact on public policy Other * Next meeting scheduled for 7 October * Discuss materials for LA meeting on mailing list * Work on agenda for F2F meeting for LA

1 0

Agenda for Tues. Sep. 23rd cc ..
by Manal Ismail Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

Dear All .. Sincere apologies for the late sending .. Here is the suggested agenda for today's call .. 1. Welcome GNSO Liaison to the GAC 2. Discussion of Day-to-Day Work Track (attached) 3. Discussion of PDP Work Track (attached) 4. LA meeting a. Structure of presentation b. F2F meeting logistics 5. AoB Kind regards --Manal

1 0

Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Food for thought ..
by Marika Konings Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

Manal, you are correct with regards to the timing in relation to public comment periods. The PDP Manual prescribes a minimum timeframe for the public comment period on the Preliminary Issue Report as well as the Initial Report (at least 30 days). Furthermore, it also provides a minimum of 35 days for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies to provide input to the WG at an early stage of the process and this same timeframe is usually also applied in relation to input requested from other SO/ACs. However, as Manal notes, in instances where more time has been requested, this has always been granted, at least as far as I can remember. Also, it may be worth reminding everyone of the main objective of each of these opportunities for public comment / input during the course of a PDP: * Public comment period on the Preliminary Issue Report: Input focused on whether there is any information missing or incorrect in the Issue Report and whether the GNSO Council should initiate a policy development process on this topic. * Request for input by the PDP WG at an early stage of the deliberations: what information or views should be considered by the PDP WG, what potential solutions / recommendations could be considered, what supporting data is available to support the SO/AC views. * Public comment period on Initial Report: input on proposed recommendations by PDP WG and/or specific questions / issues flagged by the PDP WG. * Public comment period on adopted GNSO recommendations prior to ICANN Board consideration: support or non-support for recommendations; was anything missed as part of the WG deliberations that should be brought to the Board's attention when considering the recommendations. Best regards, Marika From: Manal Ismail <manal(a)tra.gov.eg> Date: Tuesday 23 September 2014 10:24 To: Suzanne Radell <SRadell(a)ntia.doc.gov>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org>, "gac-gnso-cg(a)icann.org" <gac-gnso-cg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Food for thought .. Many thanks Suzanne for sharing your thoughts .. Let me just make sure I got both points right .. Do you mean we need to discuss the below features described by Olof without proposing a solution from our side? If yes, is this because you do not want to preempt the discussion? It¹s a valid point, although I thought a proposal would serve as a suggested way forward should we not get the feedback we wish for (the survey has already sought suggestions on how to improve the current mechanisms to make them more useful as well as suggestions for new mechanisms) .. In all cases, we can share the survey results at the very beginning, discuss them thoroughly, seek feedback and suggestions and leave any proposals we may agree upon as a fall back scenario should we not receive real-time feedback, does this make sense? Regarding your second point on timelines on the GNSO¹s side, I fully agree this needs further discussion, but I initially understood from our last call, and I stand to be corrected, that, in principle, the timing is flexible should the GNSO receive an indication that more time is needed / GAC input is expected .. But of course, we can discuss the necessary details, if this is what you mean .. Looking forward to further discuss on the call today .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Suzanne Radell [mailto:SRadell@ntia.doc.gov] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 10:19 PM To: Manal Ismail; Olof Nordling; gac-gnso-cg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: Food for thought .. Hi all, and thanks to Olof and Manal for their input. I do think these options need to be considered, hopefully as a contribution to the GAC-GNSO discussions in LA. We really do need to get at the bottom or heart of the problems highlighted by the survey results, and hearing from our colleagues directly as to what mechanisms/means they would find useful will be a good first step. I¹d also like us to explore the timelines on the GNSO¹s side for comments on Issues Reports, as that basically sets the GAC¹s parameters. Cheers, Suz From:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 4:12 PM To: Olof Nordling; gac-gnso-cg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Food for thought .. Dear Olof .. Cannot agree more with the three potentially desirable features you described below .. I have high hopes that a joint committee, with participation from both sides and the key role played by the GNSO liaison to the GAC will do this necessary interfacing .. - Keeping an open and responsive channel with the GNSO, and - Throttling, streamlining, prioritizing and following-up on GNSO requests to the GAC Looking forward to our discussion tomorrow .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 7:20 PM To: Manal Ismail; gac-gnso-cg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: Food for thought .. Dear Manal and all Thanks for these useful thoughts! I¹ve tried to think as well, based on the survey outcome, but I only came up with three potentially desirable features of a future GNSO briefing vehicle to the GAC: Streamlined rather a single vehicle/channel than multiple, in order to get an overview, and relatively frequent (monthly or fortnightly) Prioritized yes, we¹ll have to find a way to identify and highlight the developments/threads with clear public policy aspects Digestible concise short overview, quick read, with headlines and links to background docs etc (of which there are plenty) Thus, rather general points, but perhaps useful input to the discussion. If others think likewise, we¹ll then just (!) have to consider how on earth to realize something like that All the best Olof From:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2014 6:12 PM To: gac-gnso-cg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Food for thought .. Dear All .. As agreed on our last call, we need to discuss the PDP track and the remaining options of the day-to-day track in light of 2 recent developments: - Having the GNSO liaison to the GAC onboard - Results of the GAC survey I believe we concluded from the survey that the problem is not lack of information but too much information that is sometimes overlooked, not properly channeled, streamlined and/or prioritized on the GAC agenda .. Accordingly I believe our focus should be how to fully utilize existing awareness mechanisms to ensure they achieve their full objectives .. Such mechanisms are also the corner stone connecting both tracks day-to-day and PDP.. Upon receipt those should trigger either: - Day-to-day cooperation on the topic under discussion, in terms of: conf call, webinar, further email exchanges, including it on the agenda of the following face-to-face meeting, etc or - PDP exchange in terms of: whether or not the GAC is interested in the topic, whether or not the GAC intends to provide input, etc I assume those mechanisms are all listed in the survey, namely: 1. Announcements from GNSO Secretariat 2. Requests for input from GNSO PDP Working Groups 3. Participation in GNSO Working Groups 4. GAC Early Engagement Policy Documents (https://gacweb.icann.org/dispaly/gacweb/GAC+Early+Engagement+Policy+Documen ts) monthly 5. GNSO Background Briefings (e.g. http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/background-briefing-13mar14-en.pdf) issued monthly? 6. Policy Update (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/update-2014-02-20-en) monthly 7. Policy Update Webinar (takes place prior to every ICANN meeting) 3 times/year I believe the last 2 cover more than just the GNSO .. So maybe we should focus our discussions on the first 5 above noting their frequency, chronological order if applicable, receiving party, etc .. I wonder whether any of the above mechanisms is relevant and can be highlight on the Issue Scoping¹ flow chart (attached).. I have provided some comments on the day-to-day document (also attached marked in track changes) .. Appreciate your thoughts in preparation for our upcoming call .. I have to admit that I did not have the chance to discuss with Jonathan in advance, and have sent directly to the group for the sake of time as we will be having our call shortly after the weekend .. So Jonathan, please provide your views freely whether with or against J .. Kind Regards --Manal

2 1