ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Final GAC communique


i'm in.

mikey


On Nov 27, 2013, at 10:51 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> 
> Great to have this level of engagement on a topic!
> 
> A couple of points on status:
> 
> 1. The issue arises formally from a recommendation of ATRT 1 i.e. that the
> GAC should engage earlier with the GNSO PDP.
> 2. My interpretation is:
> a) that it is intended that this engagement / input should be such that when
> (and if) the GAC does provide Advice (to the Board), it is at least not
> unexpected and, at best, consistent with GNSO policy / policy advice.
> And 
> b) that the GAC's input (to the GNSO policy work) should be focussed
> primarily on the potential (or actual) public policy implications of the
> corresponding GNSO policy work.
> 
> Of course, the devil is in both the detail and the expectations of the
> format of and response to the input of the GAC.  That is what the table that
> Marika sent around attempts to start to flesh out.
> And, therefore, the scope of the joint team to try to make progress on.
> 
> I received an update today from Manal which suggests that the GAC may
> participate with as many as 6 participants.  In which case, it seems to me,
> that we need a balanced number of participants.
> Should that be the case, some of you on this thread may wish to volunteer to
> participate.
> 
> To set expectations, I am anticipating that we'll have a mailing list and
> regular calls (say 2 weekly), not dissimilar to a GNSO working group.
> 
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 26 November 2013 17:53
> To: Mary Wong
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique
> 
> 
> 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.)
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>