Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Food for thought ..
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@tra.gov.eg> Date: Tuesday 23 September 2014 10:24 To: Suzanne Radell <SRadell@ntia.doc.gov>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@icann.org>, "gac-gnso-cg@icann.org" <gac-gnso-cg@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@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@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@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@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
All, Thank-you once again to Manal for diligently keeping us on track. I really like the thinking on this thread and feel that this group has to tread a delicate line between offering leadership and listening / engaging when we do talk / meet with the GAC. After all, we have given these issue much more thought than most others and so the leadership point speaks, for example, to Suzanne's one of setting expectations / parameters. 1. I like the idea of a form of joint committee / regular meeting of leadership teams together with the work of the liaison putting us in a good place (Day-to-day). 2. As we have recognised from the outset, a critical point which follows is that of timely responses (or initiatives) from the GAC followed by reasonable (commonly understood) expectations of the action that will result (engagement with PDP). I am optimistic for the following reason. I do not think that the GAC have to be experts in the work of the GNSO and, providing we can appropriately manage and filter that work (point 1 above), the GAC do not need to be experts. What the GAC does need (IMO) is to be given sufficient and clear information to know where to focus their attention (with GNSO help) and then have a reasonable process and expectation (point 2 above) about what will happen in areas where GAC attention is focussed. Very sorry that I cannot make the call. I will work with Manal and all of you on the presentation for LA. I feel that if we can get gist of the above across in a meeting run along the lines set out below, we should end up in a good place. 1. Results and discussion of Survey 2. Status update from GAC / GNSO CG 3. Introduction to and expectations of the Liaison 4. Further work plans Thanks, Jonathan From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: 23 September 2014 08:48 To: Manal Ismail; Suzanne Radell; Olof Nordling; gac-gnso-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Food for thought .. 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@tra.gov.eg> Date: Tuesday 23 September 2014 10:24 To: Suzanne Radell <SRadell@ntia.doc.gov>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@icann.org>, "gac-gnso-cg@icann.org" <gac-gnso-cg@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? It's 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 GNSO's 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@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. I'd also like us to explore the timelines on the GNSO's side for comments on Issues Reports, as that basically sets the GAC's 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@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@icann.org Subject: RE: Food for thought .. Dear Manal and all Thanks for these useful thoughts! I've 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, we'll 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, we'll 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@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 Scoping' 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
participants (2)
-
Jonathan Robinson -
Marika Konings