[Gac-gnso-cg] For your review - draft final status update and recommendations

Wed Sep 21 06:38:34 UTC 2016

Dear Marika

Thank you for your comments to my input. 

There you say that “any formal input received by PDP WGs will be reviewed and is documented in the form of a public comment review tool. In that tool, the WG will document the perspectives of the WG on the input provided as well as what changes/updates, if any, were made in response”. While I think this is important and a good basis, first, I’m not sure whether this is always made for all formal communications from the GAC referring to an ongoing PDP, and second, probably the reaction from the GNSO PDP WG risks being lost in the flood of information being produced and may escape the attention of the GAC. Therefore, I would recommend that such a feedback is singled out, reviewed by the GNSO in order to add/provide context as appropriate, and communicated directly to the GAC through its Secretariat. This would help GAC to keep track of the effectiveness of its comments and would facilitate an ongoing dialogue with GNSO.

Best regards

Jorge 

Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. September 2016 00:30
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>; gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
Betreff: Re: AW: [Gac-gnso-cg] For your review - draft final status update and recommendations

Thank you Jorge for your feedback. I have taken the liberty to respond to one of your points below. 

As a general point, it might be helpful if you and others can separate out which items may require formal processes and which ones are more of an informal nature. The PDP allows for a lot of flexibility and as such it does not prevent or prohibit additional dialogue and/or discussions with the GAC. As such, it may be worth including an additional recommendation that would remind both the GNSO and the GAC of the flexible nature of the GNSO PDP and encourage both groups to take advantage of this characteristic to allow for additional discussion / engagement if/when needed? If any of these or other suggestions are expected to result in formal processes, these would need to be framed as such.

Best regards,

Marika

Marika Konings

Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

Email: marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>   

Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso>  and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers> .

From: "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> " <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> >
Date: Monday 19 September 2016 at 03:41
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> >, "gac-gnso-cg at icann.org <mailto:gac-gnso-cg at icann.org> " <gac-gnso-cg at icann.org <mailto:gac-gnso-cg at icann.org> >
Subject: AW: [Gac-gnso-cg] For your review - draft final status update and recommendations

Dear all 

After a read-through of the draft final report and its recommendations some issues come to my mind which I would like to share with you:

As to the day-to-day cooperation, I feel that the contacts between the leadership groups of the GNSO and the GAC could be further strengthened, providing for periodic conference calls and meetings where pressing issues could be debated, inviting if needed the corresponding “topic leads” in both constituencies, and also a regular revision and follow-up of the collaboration could be discussed. E.g., probably it would be sensible to recommend to have periodic calls to discuss pressing issues where a certain coordination would help both constituencies – for instance every month as a basis.

Regarding recommendation 4 I tend to disagree a bit with the seemingly implied idea that current levels of engagement from the GAC are such that no further mechanisms would be needed. If we look at the three big PDPs which are ongoing (PDP on subsequent procedures; PDP on review of protection mechanisms; PDP on registry directory services) we see that participation from the GAC in the first two ones is largely on an individual basis and in the third one participation is led by our PSWG. Therefore, I feel that further thought might be warranted on how to better structure the interaction between the GAC and the GNSO beyond the initial phases covered by the “quick look mechanism”. 

This may be an issue for the GAC itself to tackle, but perhaps a clearer feedback from the GNSO to GAC inputs into the PDP process could help to keep up the dialogue in a structured way. In this regard, my feeling is that after submitting GAC responses to the GNSO it is a bit hard to know how and to what degree they are taken into account in the GNSO PDP processes. For instance, we could recommend a feedback mechanism regarding GAC inputs to GNSO processes (this could for instance take a similar form to the “GNSO review of the GAC Commmunique”). 

[MK: any formal input received by PDP WGs will be reviewed and is documented in the form of a public comment review tool. In that tool, the WG will document the perspectives of the WG on the input provided as well as what changes/updates, if any, were made in response. See for example the comment review tool concerning outreach message #1 of the RDS PDP WG to which the GAC responded: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59645746/Outreach%20%231%20-%20Public%20Comment%20Review%20Tool%20-%20FINAL%201%20July%202016.pdf?version=1 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59645746/Outreach%20%231%20-%20Public%20Comment%20Review%20Tool%20-%20FINAL%201%20July%202016.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1468824052000&api=v2)> &modificationDate=1468824052000&api=v2).] 

In addition, we could include in the recommendations some wording inviting GAC to strengthen its participation in later stages of PDPs and we could also suggest that this issue is reviewed from time to time by the leaderships of both constituencies.

Regarding recommendation 5 I’m not sure whether we should not still give some further thinking to possible ways to conciliate between GAC and GNSO if differences of opinion arise in the concluding stages of a PDP. This could take place before a final decision is taken by the GNSO. For instance, it seems to me that a joint teleconference before the GNSO took its final decision on the PPSAI could have helped to understand each other’s’ concerns better.

As to recommendation 6 I’m a bit unclear to what “preliminary recommendations” it refers. Perhaps it would be good to quote/transcribe or link to them in a footnote, for ease of reference.

And finally, regarding recommendation 7, I feel that, as said above, we could stress a bit more that a closer interaction between GAC and GNSO leadership teams would help and serve as an appropriate follow-up mechanism.

Hope this is helpful :) 

Thanks and regards

Jorge  

Von: gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org>  [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Marika Konings
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. September 2016 23:38
An: gac-gnso-cg at icann.org <mailto:gac-gnso-cg at icann.org> 
Betreff: [Gac-gnso-cg] For your review - draft final status update and recommendations

Dear All,

Following the last CG update to the GNSO and GAC at ICANN57, staff has worked with the CG leadership team and developed the attached ‘draft final status update and recommendations’ document for your review. This document provides an overview of the achievements to date as well as reviews the outstanding items in conjunction with proposed recommendations to close these items out taking into account the input received in response to the survey. The objective is to deliver this final status update to the GNSO and GAC ahead of ICANN57 to allow for review and discussion and possibly adoption of the recommendations and closure of the CG during ICANN57. As such you are encouraged to review this document and share any comments / edits you may have on the mailing list. In parallel we’ll go ahead and circulate a doodle poll with the aim to schedule a CG meeting in the week of 26 September to review and discussion any input received. 

Thanks,

Marika

Marika Konings

Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

Email: marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>   

Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso>  and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers> .

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20160921/cf2ed814/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 9003 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20160921/cf2ed814/smime-0001.p7s>