Re: [council] Final GAC communique

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

Thanks for the clarification Thomas. It makes a lot of sense to be wary of what 
kind of early engagement we’d like to encourage from the GAC, and I don’t find 
it surprising that there seems to be a general sense of agreement here on how 
this should be done.

I, like others, feel it would be great to have more GAC representatives become 
involved in PDP WGs, but cannot confidently predict how this would affect the 
GAC reaction at-large. I am not familiar with how the GAC collectively reaches 
a position on PDP outcomes. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that these 
positions are prepared by only a handful of their members. If anyone else has 
insights on how this is done, I’d appreciate it if you shared.

Like Chuck said, we do have two GAC reps on the policy and implementation WG, 
but this is not a PDP WG. And unless I am mistaken (and please correct me if 
I’m wrong on this Chuck), their participation both during calls and on-list is 
quite limited. I bring this up because encouraging GAC members to join WGs is 
one thing, and encouraging them to actively engage in the consensus development 
of policy recommendations is another. I hope we can encourage them to do both. 
I am curious to see how interaction at this level (the WG level) might affect 
GAC Advice (capital A) and their collective perception of the necessity and 
manner of early engagement.

Thanks.

Amr

On Nov 26, 2013, at 5:30 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> ah!
> 
> *very* helpful.  thanks Thomas for taking the time to craft that reply.  and 
> thanks to John for picking up how i misunderstood the core of Thomas' 
> argument.  
> 
> i agree with you that capital-A advice would indeed be complicated for a WG 
> to handle, given that the goal of WG discussion is to arrive at positions 
> that are usually different from the starting points of each participant.  
> 
> does Berry's contribution to this thread (describing USG comments during a 
> comment period) provide an avenue for slightly-less-firm input from the GAC, 
> or GAC members?  while WG's are not required to incorporate comments into 
> their final positions, they ARE required to respond to each comment -- which 
> might provide an avenue for dialog.  focusing on developing that approach 
> might lead us to a good middle ground between the WG's need for 
> flexibility/negotiation and the GAC's need for structure and due deliberation.
> 
> m
> 
> 
> On Nov 26, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> John, Mikey and Chuck,
>> to start with, I am not against early GAC input and you will remember that I 
>> have encouraged that the GAC or individual GA members get involved at the 
>> earliest possible date. Let me quote from my earlier e-mail where I 
>> explicitly stated that:
>> 
>>>>> 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. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> What we should discuss, though, is whether GAC Advice (capital letter A) 
>> should be directed at PDP WGs during a PDP or at the G-Council. 
>> 
>> Bear in mind, I spoke about GAC Advice and not about GAC input. 
>> 
>> My hesitation with respect to GAC Advice during a PDP stems from the 
>> following considerations:
>> 
>> - The term GAC Advice has legal implications. At the moment GAC Advice is 
>> only directed at the Board and the Board can only disregard GAC Advice under 
>> certain circumstances. 
>> 
>> -  If GAC Advice were also directed at PDP WGs, would or should that be a 
>> second opportunity for the GAC to give Advice (capital A)? If so, what would 
>> be the consequences of that?
>> 
>> - Could the WG disregard GAC Advice? If so, what would give the WG authority 
>> to do so? PDP WGs work on recommendations to be made to the Council, but I 
>> do not see that it has the legal authority to make binding decisions on 
>> behalf of the GNSO or even ICANN, while, in fact, responding to GAC Advice 
>> in one way or the other would be or would be seen as acting on behalf of 
>> ICANN.
>> 
>> - If the WG followed GAC Advice, would that bind the Board at a later stage 
>> so the Board looses the right to disregard it? 
>> 
>> - Either way PDP WGs are tasked to work and I am not sure we should burden 
>> their work with issues that might have far-reaching political implications 
>> for the whole community.
>> 
>> - Comparable issues would arise if GAC Advice would be directed at the 
>> G-Council. 
>> 
>> Again, I very much in favor of GAC early engagement and the discussion that 
>> we have here should not dilute that. Even more, GAC early engagement can 
>> help avoid friction between the GAC's expectations and the communities work 
>> product at a later stage and maybe avoid the necessity for GAC Advice to the 
>> Board. 
>> 
>> What I am asking for is that we carefully consider the consequences of GAC 
>> input if such input took the format of GAC Advice for the reasons above. 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Thomas
>> 
>> 
>> Am 26.11.2013 um 12:36 schrieb John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.)
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: 
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>