<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Final GAC communique
Thomas,
Can you confirm you were arguing against early GAC input?
Berard
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 26, 2013, at 10:25 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> hi all,
>
> i lean in Chuck's direction with regard to WG participation. i don't have
> the history/knowledge to comment on the relationship between
> Board/GAC/GNSO-Council...
>
> as i've come to know the WG process over the years, i've found that it works
> better when there are more inputs rather than fewer. that doesn't mean that
> it's easier, only that the results are more robust. i've always hoped for
> more participation by members of the GAC and am keen to find ways that they
> could do that.
>
> i also agree with Chuck that earlier participation is a great thing. much
> like any project, the sooner we can get help figuring out the gaps in our
> thinking, or the reasons why a given direction is to be desired, the easier
> it is to get on the right track. and the less backtracking/repair/recovery
> we need to do later on. often people don't really mind changing the
> direction a conversation is going if it resolves a divergence -- but when the
> journey is nearly done, WG members are weary and the road to the new place is
> long, sometimes participants get frustrated and resist the change just
> because it's hard to get from here to there.
>
> these thoughts don't just apply to the GAC, but any point of view that needs
> to be expressed in a WG. more voices is good. earlier is good.
>
> like Chuck, i'm willing to be persuaded. :-)
>
> mikey
>
>
>> On Nov 26, 2013, at 8:12 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> Please see my responses below.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 5:45 PM
>> To: Gomes, Chuck
>> Cc: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
>> Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique
>>
>> Hi Avri and Chuck,
>> in my view, we should have a discussion on our expectations some time soon.
>>
>> Other than Avri, I do think that the GAC could engage early and / or
>> acknowledge the role and work products of the GNSO and at the same time only
>> consider the Board as its equal.
>>
>> [Chuck Gomes] I think the Bylaws should be changed so the GAC is encouraged
>> to provide input to WGs as early as possible like they did with the IGO-INGO
>> PDP WG, albeit via the Board. I personally think that the language in the
>> Bylaws that says that the GAC should be complemented with language that says
>> they also give advice to policy WGs that involve public policy issues. The
>> excuse that they are just advisors to the Board should be removed.
>>
>> During the GAC/GNSO session it was mentioned that the GAC still needs to
>> consider when to give advice during a GNSO policy development process and I
>> am not sure we really want GAC Advice directed at the G-Council or even at
>> the WG level.
>>
>> [Chuck Gomes] Why not?
>>
>> The GAC should engage early so that PDP WGs get an indication as to what the
>> GAC or even individual GAC member's thinking is. This is valuable and will
>> help a lot. I would not like to see special rights for the GAC to be
>> implemented. In that regard, it does not harm if the GAC sees the Board as
>> the group to direct advice at.
>>
>> [Chuck Gomes] As you can see by my earlier comments, I disagree but am open
>> to being convinced otherwise.
>>
>> We should discuss this further - maybe in one of the upcoming telcos.
>>
>> [Chuck Gomes] I am open to discussion but remember that I am only a
>> temporary alternate on the Council and probably will not be on any more
>> Council calls.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Thomas
>>
>>> Am 22.11.2013 um 18:09 schrieb "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
>
>
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|