<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Final GAC communique
Me too.
Thanks.
Amr
Sent from mobile
> On Nov 27, 2013, at 5:56 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.)
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|