RE: [council] Final GAC communique

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> 
>> 
>> Remember that they never thought we should be considering this.  :(
>> 
>> Chuck
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
>> Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
>> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 3:11 PM
>> To: Glen de Saint Géry
>> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 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@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> 
>>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <FINAL_Buenos_Aires_GAC_Communique_20131120.pdf>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gac mailing list
>>> gac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac
>> 
>> 
>> 
>