[Gac-gnso-cg] Food for thought ..

Tue Sep 23 08:24:00 UTC 2014

Many thanks Suzanne for sharing your thoughts .. Let me just make sure I
got both points right .. 

Do you mean we need to discuss the below features described by Olof
without proposing a solution from our side? If yes, is this because you
do not want to preempt the discussion? It's a valid point, although I
thought a proposal would serve as a suggested way forward should we not
get the feedback we wish for (the survey has already sought suggestions
on how to improve the current mechanisms to make them more useful as
well as suggestions for new mechanisms) .. In all cases, we can share
the survey results at the very beginning, discuss them thoroughly, seek
feedback and suggestions and leave any proposals we may agree upon as a
fall back scenario should we not receive real-time feedback, does this
make sense?

Regarding your second point on timelines on the GNSO's side, I fully
agree this needs further discussion, but I initially understood from our
last call, and I stand to be corrected, that, in principle, the timing
is flexible should the GNSO receive an indication that more time is
needed / GAC input is expected .. But of course, we can discuss the
necessary details, if this is what you mean ..

Looking forward to further discuss on the call today .. 

Kind Regards

--Manal

From: Suzanne Radell [mailto:SRadell at ntia.doc.gov] 
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 10:19 PM
To: Manal Ismail; Olof Nordling; gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
Subject: RE: Food for thought ..

Hi all, and thanks to Olof and Manal for their input.  I do think these
options need to be considered, hopefully as a contribution to the
GAC-GNSO discussions in LA.  We really do need to get at the bottom or
heart of the problems highlighted by the survey results, and hearing
from our colleagues directly as to what mechanisms/means they would find
useful will be a good first step.  I'd also like us to explore the
timelines on the GNSO's side for comments on Issues Reports, as that
basically sets the GAC's parameters.  Cheers, Suz  

From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 4:12 PM
To: Olof Nordling; gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Food for thought ..

Dear Olof ..

Cannot agree more with the three potentially desirable features you
described below ..

I have high hopes that a joint committee, with participation from both
sides and the key role played by the GNSO liaison to the GAC will do
this necessary interfacing ..

-          Keeping an open and responsive channel with the GNSO, and 

-          Throttling, streamlining, prioritizing and following-up on
GNSO requests to the GAC  

Looking forward to our discussion tomorrow ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling at icann.org] 
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 7:20 PM
To: Manal Ismail; gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
Subject: RE: Food for thought ..

Dear Manal and all

Thanks for these useful thoughts! I've tried to think as well, based on
the survey outcome, but I only came up with three potentially desirable
features of a future GNSO briefing vehicle to the GAC:

Streamlined - rather a single vehicle/channel than multiple, in order to
get an overview, and relatively frequent (monthly or fortnightly)

Prioritized - yes, we'll have to find a way to identify and highlight
the developments/threads with clear public policy aspects

Digestible - concise short overview, quick read, with headlines and
links to background docs etc (of which there are plenty)

Thus, rather general points, but perhaps useful input to the discussion.
If others think likewise, we'll then just (!) have to consider how on
earth to realize something like that...

All the best

Olof

From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2014 6:12 PM
To: gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Food for thought ..

Dear All ..

As agreed on our last call, we need to discuss the PDP track and the
remaining options of the day-to-day track in light of 2 recent
developments:

-          Having the GNSO liaison to the GAC onboard

-          Results of the GAC survey

I believe we concluded from the survey that the problem is not lack of
information but too much information that is sometimes overlooked, not
properly channeled, streamlined and/or prioritized on the GAC agenda ..
Accordingly I believe our focus should be how to fully utilize existing
awareness mechanisms to ensure they achieve their full objectives ..
Such mechanisms are also the corner stone connecting both tracks
day-to-day and PDP.. Upon receipt those should trigger either:

-          Day-to-day cooperation on the topic under discussion, in
terms of: conf call, webinar, further email exchanges, including it on
the agenda of the following face-to-face meeting, etc ... or

-          PDP exchange in terms of: whether or not the GAC is
interested in the topic, whether or not the GAC intends to provide
input, etc ...

I assume those mechanisms are all listed in the survey, namely:

1.       Announcements from GNSO Secretariat

2.       Requests for input from GNSO PDP Working Groups

3.       Participation in GNSO Working Groups

4.       GAC Early Engagement Policy Documents
(https://gacweb.icann.org/dispaly/gacweb/GAC+Early+Engagement+Policy+Doc
uments) - monthly 

5.       GNSO Background Briefings (e.g.
http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/background-briefing-13mar14-en.p
df) - issued monthly?

6.       Policy Update
(https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/update-2014-02-20-en) - monthly 

7.       Policy Update Webinar (takes place prior to every ICANN
meeting) - 3 times/year

I believe the last 2 cover more than just the GNSO .. So maybe we should
focus our discussions on the first 5 above noting their frequency,
chronological order if applicable, receiving party, etc ... .. 

I wonder whether any of the above mechanisms is relevant and can be
highlight on the 'Issue Scoping' flow chart (attached).. 

I have provided some comments on the day-to-day document (also attached
marked in track changes) .. 

Appreciate your thoughts in preparation for our upcoming call ..

I have to admit that I did not have the chance to discuss with Jonathan
in advance, and have sent directly to the group for the sake of time as
we will be having our call shortly after the weekend .. 

So Jonathan, please provide your views freely whether with or against J
.. 

Kind Regards

--Manal  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20140923/20dc5e35/attachment-0001.html>