[council] Final GAC communique

[Gomes, Chuck]

Thomas,

Please see my responses below.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] 
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 5:45 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique

Hi Avri and Chuck,
in my view, we should have a discussion on our expectations some time soon. 

Other than Avri, I do think that the GAC could engage early and / or acknowledge the role and work products of the GNSO and at the same time only consider the Board as its equal. 

[Chuck Gomes] I think the Bylaws should be changed so the GAC is encouraged to provide input to WGs as early as possible like they did with the IGO-INGO PDP WG, albeit via the Board.  I personally think that the language in the Bylaws that says that the GAC should be complemented with language that says they also give advice to policy WGs that involve public policy issues.  The excuse that they are just advisors to the Board should be removed.

During the GAC/GNSO session it was mentioned that the GAC still needs to consider when to give advice during a GNSO policy development process and I am not sure we really want GAC Advice directed at the G-Council or even at the WG level. 

[Chuck Gomes] Why not?

The GAC should engage early so that PDP WGs get an indication as to what the GAC or even individual GAC member's thinking is. This is valuable and will help a lot. I would not like to see special rights for the GAC to be implemented. In that regard, it does not harm if the GAC sees the Board as the group to direct advice at. 

[Chuck Gomes] As you can see by my earlier comments, I disagree but am open to being convinced otherwise.

We should discuss this further - maybe in one of the upcoming telcos.

[Chuck Gomes] I am open to discussion but remember that I am only a temporary alternate on the Council and probably will not be on any more Council calls.


Thanks,
Thomas 

Am 22.11.2013 um 18:09 schrieb "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>:

> 
> Note that we have two GAC participants in the Policy & Implementation (P&I) WG.  We suggested in our letter to the GAC that they might be able to serve in some sort of unofficial liaison capacity if the GAC was okay with that, not representing the GAC but being communication channels.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 12:13 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I do not think this should surprise us.  And I mean the disrespect the GAC has for any structure lower than the Board.  For them to acknowledge our work would be for them to acknowledge that we have a role on a par with theirs.  And governments never admit to being equal to any one else - only in the IGF have we seem some loosening of that in the general Internet governance arena.  I expect that they really do not consider the Board their equals, but they put up with the things they need to put up with.
> 
> They had a liaison with the Council in the past, but participation limited them and limited their ability to give advise that took no account of the work done in the GNSO.  Early engagement is contradictory to reinforcing the power of their advice - which is their ultimate goal.
> 
> I think we should continue to invite and encourage them to participate.  Sooner or later one of them will take us seriously again - we have had some WG participants from GAC in the past, we may again some day.  But we should also not fool ourselves into expecting them to take any supportive notice of our efforts.
> 
> I have every respect for those of you doing the essential work on improving coordination between GAC and the GNSO, as I expect your main reward will be knowing you tried, as opposed to any real GAC early engagement.  Hope I am wrong.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 21 Nov 2013, at 18:00, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> 
>> Nonetheless it is sad and I will say that I find it interesting to show respect to the GNSO's PDP work by working on ways to engage and then completely ignore work that is done in PDPs which is relevant to what they are deliberating.
>> 
>> Thomas
>> 
>> 
>> Am 21.11.2013 um 17:17 schrieb "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Remember that they never thought we should be considering this.  :(
>>> 
>>> Chuck
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 3:11 PM
>>> To: Glen de Saint Géry
>>> Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique
>>> 
>>> 
>>> All, 
>>> sadly, the GAC communique includes Advise on IGO/INGOs, but does not mention the GNSO's PDP WG or the motion that passed.
>>> 
>>> Thomas
>>> 
>>> =============
>>> thomas-rickert.tel
>>> +49.228.74.898.0
>>> 
>>>> Am 21.11.2013 um 16:57 schrieb Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>:
>>>> 
>>>> FYI
>>>> 
>>>> Attached please find the finalised GAC communique from Buenos Aires.
>>>> 
>>>> The communique will be posted on the GAC Website later today.
>>>> 
>>>> Glen de Saint Géry
>>>> GNSO Secretariat
>>>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> <FINAL_Buenos_Aires_GAC_Communique_20131120.pdf>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> gac mailing list
>>>> gac at gac.icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>