ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< 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 >>>