Re: [council] Final GAC communique

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Interesting. Thanks Mary.

Amr

On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:43 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> For the benefit of some of the newer participants among us and the GNSO
> community - note that even when GAC members participate in WGs, they do
> not do so as representatives of the GAC, or even their own countries,
> though they may of course be able to inform the WG of either the GAC's
> position (if there is one) on the issue at hand. The GAC has been very
> firm about this, and it may partly have to do with how GAC consensus is
> achieved - as in other multi-lateral forums, "consensus" is reached if
> there is no objection by a GAC member to a particular position.
> Conversely, if just one GAC member objects to a particular position, there
> is therefore no consensus. This is of course different from how GNSO PDPs
> and WGs work.
> 
> As Marika has mentioned, this discussion could be helpful to the small
> group from the GNSO that will be discussing methods of early engagement
> with/from the GAC, mindful of Thomas' distinction between GAC Advice (as
> conceived in the ICANN Bylaws) and GAC input.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> 
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> * One World. One Internet. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 12:18 PM
> To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique
> 
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Thanks for the clarification Thomas. It makes a lot of sense to be wary
>> of what kind of early engagement we¹d like to encourage from the GAC, and
>> I don¹t 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, I¹d 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 I¹m 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.)
>>> 
>> 
>>