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

Tue Sep 23 09:52:34 UTC 2014

All,

Thank-you once again to Manal for diligently keeping us on track.

I really like the thinking on this thread and feel that this group has to
tread a delicate line between offering leadership and listening / engaging
when we do talk / meet with the GAC. 
After all, we have given these issue much more thought than most others and
so the leadership point speaks, for example, to Suzanne's one of setting
expectations / parameters.

1.       I like the idea of a form of joint committee / regular meeting of
leadership teams together with the work of the liaison putting us in a good
place (Day-to-day).

2.       As we have recognised from the outset, a critical point which
follows is that of timely responses (or initiatives) from the GAC followed
by reasonable (commonly understood) expectations of the action that will
result (engagement with PDP).

I am optimistic for the following reason. I do not think that the GAC have
to be experts in the work of the GNSO and, providing we can appropriately
manage and filter that work (point 1 above), the GAC do not need to be
experts. What the GAC does need (IMO) is to be given sufficient and clear
information to know where to focus their attention (with GNSO help) and then
have a reasonable process and expectation (point 2 above) about what will
happen in areas where GAC attention is focussed.

Very sorry that I cannot make the call. I will work with Manal and all of
you on the presentation for LA. I feel that if we can get gist of the above
across in a meeting run along the lines set out below, we should end up in a
good place.

1.       Results and discussion of Survey

2.       Status update from GAC / GNSO CG

3.       Introduction to and expectations of the Liaison

4.       Further work plans

Thanks,

Jonathan

From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: 23 September 2014 08:48
To: Manal Ismail; Suzanne Radell; Olof Nordling; gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Food for thought ..

Manal, you are correct with regards to the timing in relation to public
comment periods. The PDP Manual prescribes a minimum timeframe for the
public comment period on the Preliminary Issue Report as well as the Initial
Report (at least 30 days). Furthermore, it also provides a minimum of 35
days for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies to provide input to the
WG at an early stage of the process and this same timeframe is usually also
applied in relation to input requested from other SO/ACs. However, as Manal
notes, in instances where more time has been requested, this has always been
granted, at least as far as I can remember. Also, it may be worth reminding
everyone of the main objective of each of these opportunities for public
comment / input during the course of a PDP:

*	Public comment period on the Preliminary Issue Report: Input focused
on whether there is any information missing or incorrect in the Issue Report
and whether the GNSO Council should initiate a policy development process on
this topic.
*	Request for input by the PDP WG at an early stage of the
deliberations: what information or views should be considered by the PDP WG,
what potential solutions / recommendations could be considered, what
supporting data is available to support the SO/AC views.
*	Public comment period on Initial Report: input on proposed
recommendations by PDP WG and/or specific questions / issues flagged by the
PDP WG.
*	Public comment period on adopted GNSO recommendations prior to ICANN
Board consideration: support or non-support for recommendations; was
anything missed as part of the WG deliberations that should be brought to
the Board's attention when considering the recommendations. 

Best regards,

Marika

From: Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
Date: Tuesday 23 September 2014 10:24
To: Suzanne Radell <SRadell at ntia.doc.gov>, Olof Nordling
<olof.nordling at icann.org>, "gac-gnso-cg at icann.org" <gac-gnso-cg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Food for thought ..

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+Documen
ts) - monthly 

5.       GNSO Background Briefings (e.g.
http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/background-briefing-13mar14-en.pdf)
- 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/db3a2aa7/attachment-0001.html>