ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< 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 >>>