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
|