<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">hi all,<div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div><b>- definition of consensus</b></div><div><br></div><div>GAC - no objections by any country?</div><div>GNSO WG - "layered" definitions stated in the PDP Guidelines (ranging from full consensus to no consensus)</div><div><br></div><div><b>- pace of work</b></div><div><br></div><div>GAC - very intense work during ICANN meetings, much lower in between?</div><div>GNSO WG - steady (usually weekly) work pace throughout the year, less activity during ICANN meetings</div><div><br></div><div><b>- tradeoff between "rapid" and "rigorous" </b></div><div><br></div><div>GAC - "rapid" trumps "rigor" (given the tight time constraints under which the GAC works)?</div><div>GNSO WG - tradeoff is keenly felt by WG leaders but in general "rigor" trumps "rapid" in my view</div><div><br></div><div><b>- ability to modify positions during discussion</b></div><div><br></div><div>GAC - limited - representatives require ministerial approval?</div><div>GNSO WG - encouraged - "going in positions" almost always change on the road to consensus</div><div><br></div><div>questions for the Council:</div><div><br></div><div>- are there more of these?</div><div>- are there opportunities that these may present? i have a few ideas about that, but this post is long enough.</div><div><br></div><div>mikey</div><div><br><div><div>On Nov 26, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Marika Konings <<a href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org">marika.konings@icann.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">To add, these are exactly some of the questions that the small committee<br>consisting of the GNSO Leadership and GAC representatives will be trying<br>to address in relation to the early engagement discussion. Attached you<br>will find the document that Jonathan circulated on 7 November that<br>identifies similar questions in relation to the proposal that was put<br>forward by Suzanne Radell, the US GAC representative. Based on the<br>feedback from Thomas, there may be additional questions that could/should<br>be added?<br><br>Best regards,<br><br>Marika<br><br>On 26/11/13 17:14, "Thomas Rickert" <<a href="mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de">rickert@anwaelte.de</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">John, Mikey and Chuck,<br>to start with, I am not against early GAC input and you will remember<br>that I have encouraged that the GAC or individual GA members get involved<br>at the earliest possible date. Let me quote from my earlier e-mail where<br>I explicitly stated that:<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The GAC should engage early so that PDP WGs get an indication as to<br>what the GAC or even individual GAC member's thinking is. This is<br>valuable and will help a lot.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><br><br><br>What we should discuss, though, is whether GAC Advice (capital letter A)<br>should be directed at PDP WGs during a PDP or at the G-Council.<br><br>Bear in mind, I spoke about GAC Advice and not about GAC input.<br><br>My hesitation with respect to GAC Advice during a PDP stems from the<br>following considerations:<br><br>- The term GAC Advice has legal implications. At the moment GAC Advice is<br>only directed at the Board and the Board can only disregard GAC Advice<br>under certain circumstances.<br><br>- If GAC Advice were also directed at PDP WGs, would or should that be a<br>second opportunity for the GAC to give Advice (capital A)? If so, what<br>would be the consequences of that?<br><br>- Could the WG disregard GAC Advice? If so, what would give the WG<br>authority to do so? PDP WGs work on recommendations to be made to the<br>Council, but I do not see that it has the legal authority to make binding<br>decisions on behalf of the GNSO or even ICANN, while, in fact, responding<br>to GAC Advice in one way or the other would be or would be seen as acting<br>on behalf of ICANN.<br><br>- If the WG followed GAC Advice, would that bind the Board at a later<br>stage so the Board looses the right to disregard it?<br><br>- Either way PDP WGs are tasked to work and I am not sure we should<br>burden their work with issues that might have far-reaching political<br>implications for the whole community.<br><br>- Comparable issues would arise if GAC Advice would be directed at the<br>G-Council. <br><br>Again, I very much in favor of GAC early engagement and the discussion<br>that we have here should not dilute that. Even more, GAC early engagement<br>can help avoid friction between the GAC's expectations and the<br>communities work product at a later stage and maybe avoid the necessity<br>for GAC Advice to the Board.<br><br>What I am asking for is that we carefully consider the consequences of<br>GAC input if such input took the format of GAC Advice for the reasons<br>above. <br><br>Thanks,<br>Thomas<br><br><br>Am 26.11.2013 um 12:36 schrieb John Berard <<a href="mailto:john@crediblecontext.com">john@crediblecontext.com</a>>:<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><br>Thomas,<br><br>Can you confirm you were arguing against early GAC input?<br><br>Berard<br><br>Sent from my iPhone<br><br><blockquote type="cite">On Nov 26, 2013, at 10:25 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <<a href="mailto:mike@haven2.com">mike@haven2.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>hi all,<br><br>i lean in Chuck's direction with regard to WG participation. i don't<br>have the history/knowledge to comment on the relationship between<br>Board/GAC/GNSO-Council...<br><br>as i've come to know the WG process over the years, i've found that it<br>works better when there are more inputs rather than fewer. that<br>doesn't mean that it's easier, only that the results are more robust.<br>i've always hoped for more participation by members of the GAC and am<br>keen to find ways that they could do that.<br><br>i also agree with Chuck that earlier participation is a great thing.<br>much like any project, the sooner we can get help figuring out the gaps<br>in our thinking, or the reasons why a given direction is to be desired,<br>the easier it is to get on the right track. and the less<br>backtracking/repair/recovery we need to do later on. often people<br>don't really mind changing the direction a conversation is going if it<br>resolves a divergence -- but when the journey is nearly done, WG<br>members are weary and the road to the new place is long, sometimes<br>participants get frustrated and resist the change just because it's<br>hard to get from here to there.<br><br>these thoughts don't just apply to the GAC, but any point of view that<br>needs to be expressed in a WG. more voices is good. earlier is good.<br><br>like Chuck, i'm willing to be persuaded. :-)<br><br>mikey<br><br><br><blockquote type="cite">On Nov 26, 2013, at 8:12 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>><br>wrote:<br><br><br>Thomas,<br><br>Please see my responses below.<br><br>Chuck<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@<a href="http://anwaelte.de">anwaelte.de</a>]<br>Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 5:45 PM<br>To: Gomes, Chuck<br>Cc: Avri Doria; Council GNSO<br>Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique<br><br>Hi Avri and Chuck,<br>in my view, we should have a discussion on our expectations some time<br>soon. <br><br>Other than Avri, I do think that the GAC could engage early and / or<br>acknowledge the role and work products of the GNSO and at the same<br>time only consider the Board as its equal.<br><br>[Chuck Gomes] I think the Bylaws should be changed so the GAC is<br>encouraged to provide input to WGs as early as possible like they did<br>with the IGO-INGO PDP WG, albeit via the Board. I personally think<br>that the language in the Bylaws that says that the GAC should be<br>complemented with language that says they also give advice to policy<br>WGs that involve public policy issues. The excuse that they are just<br>advisors to the Board should be removed.<br><br>During the GAC/GNSO session it was mentioned that the GAC still needs<br>to consider when to give advice during a GNSO policy development<br>process and I am not sure we really want GAC Advice directed at the<br>G-Council or even at the WG level.<br><br>[Chuck Gomes] Why not?<br><br>The GAC should engage early so that PDP WGs get an indication as to<br>what the GAC or even individual GAC member's thinking is. This is<br>valuable and will help a lot. I would not like to see special rights<br>for the GAC to be implemented. In that regard, it does not harm if the<br>GAC sees the Board as the group to direct advice at.<br><br>[Chuck Gomes] As you can see by my earlier comments, I disagree but<br>am open to being convinced otherwise.<br><br>We should discuss this further - maybe in one of the upcoming telcos.<br><br>[Chuck Gomes] I am open to discussion but remember that I am only a<br>temporary alternate on the Council and probably will not be on any<br>more Council calls.<br><br><br>Thanks,<br>Thomas <br><br><blockquote type="cite">Am 22.11.2013 um 18:09 schrieb "Gomes, Chuck" <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>>:<br><br><br>Note that we have two GAC participants in the Policy &<br>Implementation (P&I) WG. We suggested in our letter to the GAC that<br>they might be able to serve in some sort of unofficial liaison<br>capacity if the GAC was okay with that, not representing the GAC but<br>being communication channels.<br><br>Chuck<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>[mailto:owner-<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 12:13 PM<br>To: Council GNSO<br>Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique<br><br>Hi,<br><br>I do not think this should surprise us. And I mean the disrespect<br>the GAC has for any structure lower than the Board. For them to<br>acknowledge our work would be for them to acknowledge that we have a<br>role on a par with theirs. And governments never admit to being<br>equal to any one else - only in the IGF have we seem some loosening<br>of that in the general Internet governance arena. I expect that they<br>really do not consider the Board their equals, but they put up with<br>the things they need to put up with.<br><br>They had a liaison with the Council in the past, but participation<br>limited them and limited their ability to give advise that took no<br>account of the work done in the GNSO. Early engagement is<br>contradictory to reinforcing the power of their advice - which is<br>their ultimate goal.<br><br>I think we should continue to invite and encourage them to<br>participate. Sooner or later one of them will take us seriously<br>again - we have had some WG participants from GAC in the past, we may<br>again some day. But we should also not fool ourselves into expecting<br>them to take any supportive notice of our efforts.<br><br>I have every respect for those of you doing the essential work on<br>improving coordination between GAC and the GNSO, as I expect your<br>main reward will be knowing you tried, as opposed to any real GAC<br>early engagement. Hope I am wrong.<br><br>avri<br><br><br><blockquote type="cite">On 21 Nov 2013, at 18:00, Thomas Rickert wrote:<br><br>Nonetheless it is sad and I will say that I find it interesting to<br>show respect to the GNSO's PDP work by working on ways to engage and<br>then completely ignore work that is done in PDPs which is relevant<br>to what they are deliberating.<br><br>Thomas<br><br><br><blockquote type="cite">Am 21.11.2013 um 17:17 schrieb "Gomes, Chuck"<br><<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>>:<br><br><br>Remember that they never thought we should be considering this. :(<br><br>Chuck<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>[mailto:owner-<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert<br>Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 3:11 PM<br>To: Glen de Saint Géry<br>Cc: <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique<br><br><br>All, <br>sadly, the GAC communique includes Advise on IGO/INGOs, but does<br>not mention the GNSO's PDP WG or the motion that passed.<br><br>Thomas<br><br>=============<br>thomas-rickert.tel<br>+49.228.74.898.0<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Am 21.11.2013 um 16:57 schrieb Glen de Saint Géry<br><<a href="mailto:Glen@icann.org">Glen@icann.org</a>>:<br><br>FYI<br><br>Attached please find the finalised GAC communique from Buenos<br>Aires.<br><br>The communique will be posted on the GAC Website later today.<br><br>Glen de Saint Géry<br>GNSO Secretariat<br><a href="mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org">gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org</a><br>http://gnso.icann.org<br><br><br><br><FINAL_Buenos_Aires_GAC_Communique_20131120.pdf><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>gac mailing list<br>gac@gac.icann.org<br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><br><br>PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: <a href="http://www.haven2.com">www.haven2.com</a>, HANDLE:<br>OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)<br><br></blockquote><br></blockquote><br></blockquote><br><span><GAC Engagement in GNSO PDP - updated 30 Oct 2013[1].doc></span></blockquote></div><br><div apple-content-edited="true"><br>PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: <a href="http://www.haven2.com">www.haven2.com</a>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)</div><br></div></body></html>