[council] Final GAC communique

Berry Cobb mail at berrycobb.com
Tue Nov 26 15:49:47 UTC 2013


As an FYI to this discussion, the Non-PDP Consumer Metrics WG received
comments from the USG during the initial report public comment period.  The
WG spent a considerable amount of time discussing their input.  Some
comments enhanced the report, while others were determined to be out of the
WG's scope and not incorporated into the Final Report.

See the 15 May 2012 entry:

To my knowledge, this is the first WG to have received input from a
Governmental entity, this case being the Dept of Commerce.  I am unsure if
they collaborated with the US GAC representative in formulating their

In all, the WG did benefit by this input early in the process.

Thank you.  B

Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
mail at berrycobb.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 08:25
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Thomas Rickert; Avri Doria; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique

hi all,

i lean in Chuck's direction with regard to WG participation.  i don't have
the history/knowledge to comment on the relationship between

as i've come to know the WG process over the years, i've found that it works
better when there are more inputs rather than fewer.  that doesn't mean that
it's easier, only that the results are more robust.  i've always hoped for
more participation by members of the GAC and am keen to find ways that they
could do that.  

i also agree with Chuck that earlier participation is a great thing.  much
like any project, the sooner we can get help figuring out the gaps in our
thinking, or the reasons why a given direction is to be desired, the easier
it is to get on the right track.  and the less backtracking/repair/recovery
we need to do later on.  often people don't really mind changing the
direction a conversation is going if it resolves a divergence -- but when
the journey is nearly done, WG members are weary and the road to the new
place is long, sometimes participants get frustrated and resist the change
just because it's hard to get from here to there.

these thoughts don't just apply to the GAC, but any point of view that needs
to be expressed in a WG.  more voices is good.  earlier is good.

like Chuck, i'm willing to be persuaded.   :-)


On Nov 26, 2013, at 8:12 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> 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
> 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
>>>> +
>>>>> 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

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

More information about the council mailing list