<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Final GAC communique
Chuck,
I agree.
Thomas
=============
thomas-rickert.tel
+49.228.74.898.0
> Am 26.11.2013 um 20:05 schrieb "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
> I would caution against simply asking the GAC whether they meant capital A
> GAC Advice when they are talking about earlier interventions, because they
> might say yes, and I don't think that would work very well in the earlier
> stages of a WG. I think a better approach would be to suggest something like
> the following and then ask them if it makes sense and could possibly work: "
> GAC input in the earlier stages of a WG does not have to be formal advice,
> but it would be helpful to get some informal information like what issues
> they think may have public policy implications as well as any other input
> they have during PDP so that the WG could discuss it. If they could also
> provide a point of contact to interface with on the input they provide, that
> would be helpful. The input could come from individuals from the GAC who
> understand government concerns or it could come from a small informal group
> of interested GAC members participating in their individual capacities with a
> commitment to keep the full GAC informed. Of course GAC consensus input is
> also welcome as was done with the IGO-INGO but we understand that may not
> always be possible, especially early in a WG."
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 11:59 AM
> To: Mike O'Connor
> Cc: John Berard; Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique
>
> Mikey,
> since I only spoke about GAC Advice I did not expect to cause confusion.
> Otherwise I would have explained this more in the first place :-).
>
> I guess that Berry's contribution serves as an excellent example of early
> engagement.
>
> To your point whether this could provide an avenue for slightly less firm
> input: If my memory does not fail me, the GAC is currently contemplating at
> what stages during a PDP they should provide advice. Should they mean this to
> be in the format of what we now call GAC input, there would be no problems at
> all.
>
> Should they mean that such advice should have the implications of capital A
> GAC Advice, the issues I outlined might arise.
>
> This, I think the G-Council might wish to seek clarification on this or even
> come up with concrete proposals so that both the GAC as well as the G-Council
> can develop a common thinking on how early engagement should work. I guess we
> should encourage a low-hurdle communication during a PDP for the GAC. Maybe
> the GAC is also concerned about engaging early because they think we expect
> legally binding capital A Advice.
>
> Rather than speculating, maybe it would be good for Jonathan or some
> person(s) from the Council to enter into informal discussion to find out more
> about this.
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
>> Am 26.11.2013 um 13:30 schrieb "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>> 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.)
>>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|