Hi Manal, all, In an attempt to help move the conversation forward in the direction of the development of a straw man proposal, I thought it might be helpful to put some ideas on paper based on our conversations to date in the form of a flow chart (see attached – page 2). This may assist in visualising how such a quick look mechanism could work and what steps might be involved. Please note that this is just a first draft to help inspire conversations and as such, none of these proposed steps should be taken as set in stone or as required elements. In relation to triage, from my perspective that would be a separate process from the quick look mechanism. The quick look mechanism could be one of the recommendations of the triage committee to take as a next step. A way triage could for example work is: 1. All requests are centrally received (GAC secretariat?) and a brief checklist is completed by the receiving entity. Such a checklist could include for example, who made the request, what is being asked (e.g. input, participation, FYI), and what is the deadline for input. Acknowledgment is provided to the requestor, including how the request will be dealt with by the triage committee. 2. The checklist and request are submitted to the triage committee which based on the information provided makes a recommendation on whether the GAC should respond positively to the request or not. If the recommendation is that the GAC should respond positively to the request, the recommendation could include suggestions for what next steps should be taken in order to fulfil this request (e.g. If the request relates to input on a Preliminary Issue Report, the triage committee could recommend use of the quick look mechanism). 3. All recommendations are sent to the GAC / GAC leadership (it may be possible that certain categories of requests can be managed by the GAC leadership while others may need to full GAC to review?) for their consideration. Based on feedback/comments, triage committee recommendations are either adopted or modified. 4. If feasible, requestors are informed of outcome, and/or results could be posted on web-site for review (similar to what the ccNSO Council does). Just my two cents ;-) Best regards, Marika From: "manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>" <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>> Date: Tuesday 18 November 2014 06:31 To: "gac-gnso-cg@icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg@icann.org>" <gac-gnso-cg@icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] FW: [Ntfy-gac-gnso-cg] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation: GAC GNSO Consultation Meeting, Tuesday 18 November 2014 at 14:00 UTC Re-sending on behalf of Suzanne (and myself :)) 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@icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gac-gnso-cg@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@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 5:10 PM To: Suzanne Radell Cc: Mason Cole; jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@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@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:SRadell@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@ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@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+Document..., 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@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@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@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:SRadell@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@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:sradell@ntia.doc.gov> 202-482-3167