Re: [council] Final GAC communique
hi all, thanks Marika. this is really helpful. one of the things i like about it is that it breaks the puzzle into smaller pieces, which may make it easier to figure out a solution. for example, i like the way that Suzanne Radell is proposing a number of steps in the PDP where the GAC might engage, and describing what each part of the dialog might look like. as i start to really think about this, i begin to come up with a list of differences between the needs of the GAC and the GNSO. maybe having a conversation about these choices is another way to break this puzzle up into smaller, more manageable pieces out of which a solution can be built. here's my first go at a list of dimensions -- by no means complete or correct. note: these relate to working groups, not the larger GNSO or its leadership structures. - definition of consensus GAC - no objections by any country? GNSO WG - "layered" definitions stated in the PDP Guidelines (ranging from full consensus to no consensus) - pace of work GAC - very intense work during ICANN meetings, much lower in between? GNSO WG - steady (usually weekly) work pace throughout the year, less activity during ICANN meetings - tradeoff between "rapid" and "rigorous" GAC - "rapid" trumps "rigor" (given the tight time constraints under which the GAC works)? GNSO WG - tradeoff is keenly felt by WG leaders but in general "rigor" trumps "rapid" in my view - ability to modify positions during discussion GAC - limited - representatives require ministerial approval? GNSO WG - encouraged - "going in positions" almost always change on the road to consensus questions for the Council: - are there more of these? - are there opportunities that these may present? i have a few ideas about that, but this post is long enough. mikey On Nov 26, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > To add, these are exactly some of the questions that the small committee > consisting of the GNSO Leadership and GAC representatives will be trying > to address in relation to the early engagement discussion. Attached you > will find the document that Jonathan circulated on 7 November that > identifies similar questions in relation to the proposal that was put > forward by Suzanne Radell, the US GAC representative. Based on the > feedback from Thomas, there may be additional questions that could/should > be added? > > Best regards, > > Marika > > On 26/11/13 17:14, "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.) >>>> >>> >> > > <GAC Engagement in GNSO PDP - updated 30 Oct 2013[1].doc> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) Attachment:
smime.p7s
|