[Gac-gnso-cg] FW: [Ntfy-gac-gnso-cg] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation: GAC GNSO Consultation Meeting, Tuesday 18 November 2014 at 14:00 UTC

Tue Nov 18 12:48:00 UTC 2014

Many thanks Marika .. Very fast as always ..

I think the diagram will be very useful to get us started somewhere ..

A picture is worth a thousand cents ;) ..

I would then suggest that the agenda be as follows:

1.       Adoption of suggested agenda

2.       Continue quick-look / Triage mechanism discussion

a.       Summarize agreed points

b.      Discuss remaining points

c.       Map discussion to the diagram and reflect changes for next call

3.       Preparation for Singapore

a.       What to be shared? When?

b.      Remaining conference calls

4.       AoB

Kind regards

--Manal

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 1:20 PM
To: Manal Ismail; gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] FW: [Ntfy-gac-gnso-cg] REMINDER: Meeting
Invitation: GAC GNSO Consultation Meeting, Tuesday 18 November 2014 at
14:00 UTC

Hi Manal, all,

In an attempt to help move the conversation forward in the direction of
the development of a straw man proposal, I thought it might be helpful
to put some ideas on paper based on our conversations to date in the
form of a flow chart (see attached - page 2). This may assist in
visualising how such a quick look mechanism could work and what steps
might be involved. Please note that this is just a first draft to help
inspire conversations and as such, none of these proposed steps should
be taken as set in stone or as required elements.

In relation to triage, from my perspective that would be a separate
process from the quick look mechanism. The quick look mechanism could be
one of the recommendations of the triage committee to take as a next
step. A way triage could for example work is:

1.	All requests are centrally received (GAC secretariat?) and a
brief checklist is completed by the receiving entity. Such a checklist
could include for example, who made the request, what is being asked
(e.g. input, participation, FYI), and what is the deadline for input.
Acknowledgment is provided to the requestor, including how the request
will be dealt with by the triage committee.
2.	The checklist and request are submitted to the triage committee
which based on the information provided makes a recommendation on
whether the GAC should respond positively to the request or not. If the
recommendation is that the GAC should respond positively to the request,
the recommendation could include suggestions for what next steps should
be taken in order to fulfil this request (e.g. If the request relates to
input on a Preliminary Issue Report, the triage committee could
recommend use of the quick look mechanism).
3.	All recommendations are sent to the GAC / GAC leadership (it may
be possible that certain categories of requests can be managed by the
GAC leadership while others may need to full GAC to review?) for their
consideration. Based on feedback/comments, triage committee
recommendations are either adopted or modified.
4.	If feasible, requestors are informed of outcome, and/or results
could be posted on web-site for review (similar to what the ccNSO
Council does). 

Just my two cents ;-)

Best regards,

Marika

From: "manal at tra.gov.eg" <manal at tra.gov.eg>
Date: Tuesday 18 November 2014 06:31
To: "gac-gnso-cg at icann.org" <gac-gnso-cg at icann.org>
Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] FW: [Ntfy-gac-gnso-cg] REMINDER: Meeting
Invitation: GAC GNSO Consultation Meeting, Tuesday 18 November 2014 at
14:00 UTC

Re-sending on behalf of Suzanne (and myself J) as the below message did
not get through ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

From: Suzanne Radell [mailto:SRadell at ntia.doc.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 1:29 AM
To: ntfy-gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
Subject: FW: [Ntfy-gac-gnso-cg] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation: GAC GNSO
Consultation Meeting, Tuesday 18 November 2014 at 14:00 UTC

Hi everyone, as per my email exchange with Manal, we both thought the
whole group might be interested in it, so I'm sending it along.  With
apologies as well for not being able to join you tomorrow.  I am looking
forward to your thoughts on this chain.  Best regards, Suz

Suzanne Murray Radell 
Senior Policy Advisor
NTIA/Office of International Affairs
PH:  202-482-3167
FX:  202-482-1865

________________________________

From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 5:10 PM
To: Suzanne Radell
Cc: Mason Cole; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
Subject: Re: [Ntfy-gac-gnso-cg] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation: GAC GNSO
Consultation Meeting, Tuesday 18 November 2014 at 14:00 UTC

I'm fine with either .. Maybe forwarding the whole thread is better to
ensure everyone is on the same page ..

--Manal

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 18, 2014, at 12:01 AM, "Suzanne Radell" <SRadell at ntia.doc.gov>
wrote:

	Thanks again, Manal, for coming back to me prior to tomorrow's
call.  Shall I just forward this entire chain to the whole group?  Or
just my email to you and Jonathan?  Just let me know and I can get it
out later this evening.  Cheers, Suz

	From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg] 
	Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 1:48 AM
	To: Suzanne Radell
	Cc: Mason Cole; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
	Subject: RE: [Ntfy-gac-gnso-cg] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation:
GAC GNSO Consultation Meeting, Tuesday 18 November 2014 at 14:00 UTC

	Dear Suzanne ..

	Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and sorry you won't be
able to join the coming call ..

	I fully agree with you that GAC colleagues, and even the whole
ICANN community, are fully utilized by the IANA transition and ICANN
accountability processes and that we have to be very specific in what we
ask for in order to expect responses ..

	To me, triggering the discussion and encouraging GAC responses,
I believe, should be through sharing a concrete proposal (well-thought
through by the group, including GAC members with GNSO experience like
yourself and Mark) with specific questions that we may have, or may
suggest, to brainstorm on the proposal .. I also believe that,
optimally, this should be shared well in advance of the Singapore
meeting .. Such discussion may end by adopting the proposal as is,
agreeing to the proposal with certain amendments, or proposing a
completely different approach or mechanism .. but to trigger the
discussion we have to have something on the table ..

	Having said that, I'm flexible and willing to follow any
approach we agree upon .. I fully agree with your proposal that "we
could consider providing more concrete information and/or context by
using a straw man as a means of testing some of the concepts we're
discussing" .. but I thought a pre-requisite to this testing would be
agreeing on the details of what we intend to test .. So allow me to seek
further clarification on how can we demonstrate this quick-look Triage
committee mechanism in practice ..

	Let me also share with you what Marika shared (off-list for the
time being), the attached 'GNSO Issue Report Request Form' and the
'ccNSO Triage Committee process' with further information at:
http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/decisions.htm .. I believe both
documents, in addition to the GAC one-pagers available at:
https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Early+Engagement+Policy+Docu
ments, may help in coming up with the information the GAC needs to
decide whether a certain issue, to be discussed by the GNSO, is of
interest .. 

	I do see your point on triggers at the GNSO side, and look
forward to hearing their view on this .. Meanwhile I don't think this
would override the need for a quick-look mechanism, as the GAC may still
receive multiple requests from the GNSO side that need to be
prioritized, or have I missed something? 

	Finally, please feel free to share on the list for the sake of
time and for the sake of making sure we are all on the same page before
the call, particularly that you won't be on this call and I'm keen to
have your views considered, as early as possible, to make sure we're
progressing ..

	Kind Regards

	--Manal

	From: Suzanne Radell [mailto:SRadell at ntia.doc.gov] 
	Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 1:36 AM
	To: Manal Ismail
	Cc: Mason Cole
	Subject: RE: [Ntfy-gac-gnso-cg] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation:
GAC GNSO Consultation Meeting, Tuesday 18 November 2014 at 14:00 UTC

	I should have thought of that myself, Manal, so thank you and
I'm now cc'ing Mason on this message.  Cheers, Suz

	Suzanne Murray Radell 
	Senior Policy Advisor
	NTIA/Office of International Affairs
	PH:  202-482-3167
	FX:  202-482-1865

________________________________

	From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg]
	Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 5:02 PM
	To: Suzanne Radell
	Subject: Re: [Ntfy-gac-gnso-cg] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation:
GAC GNSO Consultation Meeting, Tuesday 18 November 2014 at 14:00 UTC

	Hi Suzanne ..

	Many thanks for sharing your thoughts .. It's a bit late for me
to provide an equally thorough response to your email, but I'm wondering
whether it would be ok with you if we cc Mason on this .. I think
Jonathan is quite busy and has been away for some time .. I believe
Mason may be in a position to provide a GNSO view on this, as I'm
worried we might not hear from Jonathan in due time before the call ..

	Please let me know what you think ..

	Kind Regards

	--Manal

	Sent from my iPhone

	On Nov 13, 2014, at 9:35 PM, "Suzanne Radell"
<SRadell at ntia.doc.gov> wrote:

		Hi Jonathan and Manal, before going out to the whole
group, I wanted to send along a heads up that I will not be able to join
next Tuesday's call as I'll be on a panel that morning.  As I was called
away to an unexpected meeting for the last call, I'm mindful of becoming
woefully behind.  I did want to share an impression from the notes or
recap of the most recent call, which is that we may either be at or
nearing a point in our group deliberations where we are further ahead of
our respective communities than we might like to be.  I'm fairly
confident that the near silence we're hearing on the GAC side is not at
all due to disinterest; rather, I think a majority of our colleagues
don't know what it is we want from them.  Not to mention the fact that
the two highest priorities on everyone's plate right now are the IANA
transition and ICANN accountability processes.

		So I'm wondering if we could consider providing more
concrete information and/or context by using a straw man as a means of
testing some of the concepts we're discussing.  For example, wouldn't
the concept of a triage committee for the GAC have more resonance is we
could demonstrate how it would actually work (e.g. vice theoretically)
in practice?  And I remain very keen to know whether, on the GNSO side,
we could reach agreement on some triggers that would be used at the
outset (e.g. at the time of a request for an Issues Report) to determine
whether to engage the GAC at that moment in time?  My proposals for near
term testing in terms of triggers would be anything related to
international treaties that governments sign and national laws.  If
whatever the GNSO determined might require a PDP did touch on treaties
or national laws, would it make sense to have an exchange between the
GNSO and the GAC from the beginning?  This isn't happening now, and the
assumption seems to be that it's up to the GAC to provide comments when
the Issues Report is actually posted.  We have previous examples where
this should have happened, but did not (e.g. IGO-INGO protections).  The
counter argument could be made that the GNSO could have easily engaged
the GAC on its own initiative, since this particular PDP was initiated
after the GAC had provided advice.  We are arguably/hopefully trying to
avoid these situations in the future, which suggests some change in our
respective work cultures/habits.    

		I look forward to your thoughts on this, as well as on
any other work I could/should be taking on at the moment.  In terms of
preparing for Singapore, I also think we should consider a slightly
different approach to updating the GAC and the GNSO.  Quite candidly, I
don't know how the GNSO updates are structured, but the GAC exchanges
aren't triggering exchanges per se; it's the Consultation Group
providing an update.  So I'd like to explore some alternatives with you
before proposing ideas to the rest of the group.  Thanks in advance, and
best regards, Suz

		Suzanne Murray Radell

		Senior Policy Advisor, NTIA/OIA

		sradell at ntia.doc.gov

		202-482-3167

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20141118/4e924479/attachment-0001.html>