[council] Final GAC communique
Mike O'Connor
mike at haven2.com
Tue Nov 26 20:43:06 UTC 2013
hi all,
thanks Marika. this is really helpful. one of the things i like about it is that it breaks the puzzle into smaller pieces, which may make it easier to figure out a solution. for example, i like the way that Suzanne Radell is proposing a number of steps in the PDP where the GAC might engage, and describing what each part of the dialog might look like.
as i start to really think about this, i begin to come up with a list of differences between the needs of the GAC and the GNSO. maybe having a conversation about these choices is another way to break this puzzle up into smaller, more manageable pieces out of which a solution can be built. here's my first go at a list of dimensions -- by no means complete or correct. note: these relate to working groups, not the larger GNSO or its leadership structures.
- definition of consensus
GAC - no objections by any country?
GNSO WG - "layered" definitions stated in the PDP Guidelines (ranging from full consensus to no consensus)
- pace of work
GAC - very intense work during ICANN meetings, much lower in between?
GNSO WG - steady (usually weekly) work pace throughout the year, less activity during ICANN meetings
- tradeoff between "rapid" and "rigorous"
GAC - "rapid" trumps "rigor" (given the tight time constraints under which the GAC works)?
GNSO WG - tradeoff is keenly felt by WG leaders but in general "rigor" trumps "rapid" in my view
- ability to modify positions during discussion
GAC - limited - representatives require ministerial approval?
GNSO WG - encouraged - "going in positions" almost always change on the road to consensus
questions for the Council:
- are there more of these?
- are there opportunities that these may present? i have a few ideas about that, but this post is long enough.
mikey
On Nov 26, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
> To add, these are exactly some of the questions that the small committee
> consisting of the GNSO Leadership and GAC representatives will be trying
> to address in relation to the early engagement discussion. Attached you
> will find the document that Jonathan circulated on 7 November that
> identifies similar questions in relation to the proposal that was put
> forward by Suzanne Radell, the US GAC representative. Based on the
> feedback from Thomas, there may be additional questions that could/should
> be added?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> On 26/11/13 17:14, "Thomas Rickert" <rickert at anwaelte.de> wrote:
>
>> John, Mikey and Chuck,
>> to start with, I am not against early GAC input and you will remember
>> that I have encouraged that the GAC or individual GA members get involved
>> at the earliest possible date. Let me quote from my earlier e-mail where
>> I explicitly stated that:
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> What we should discuss, though, is whether GAC Advice (capital letter A)
>> should be directed at PDP WGs during a PDP or at the G-Council.
>>
>> Bear in mind, I spoke about GAC Advice and not about GAC input.
>>
>> My hesitation with respect to GAC Advice during a PDP stems from the
>> following considerations:
>>
>> - The term GAC Advice has legal implications. At the moment GAC Advice is
>> only directed at the Board and the Board can only disregard GAC Advice
>> under certain circumstances.
>>
>> - If GAC Advice were also directed at PDP WGs, would or should that be a
>> second opportunity for the GAC to give Advice (capital A)? If so, what
>> would be the consequences of that?
>>
>> - Could the WG disregard GAC Advice? If so, what would give the WG
>> authority to do so? PDP WGs work on recommendations to be made to the
>> Council, but I do not see that it has the legal authority to make binding
>> decisions on behalf of the GNSO or even ICANN, while, in fact, responding
>> to GAC Advice in one way or the other would be or would be seen as acting
>> on behalf of ICANN.
>>
>> - If the WG followed GAC Advice, would that bind the Board at a later
>> stage so the Board looses the right to disregard it?
>>
>> - Either way PDP WGs are tasked to work and I am not sure we should
>> burden their work with issues that might have far-reaching political
>> implications for the whole community.
>>
>> - Comparable issues would arise if GAC Advice would be directed at the
>> G-Council.
>>
>> Again, I very much in favor of GAC early engagement and the discussion
>> that we have here should not dilute that. Even more, GAC early engagement
>> can help avoid friction between the GAC's expectations and the
>> communities work product at a later stage and maybe avoid the necessity
>> for GAC Advice to the Board.
>>
>> What I am asking for is that we carefully consider the consequences of
>> GAC input if such input took the format of GAC Advice for the reasons
>> above.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> Am 26.11.2013 um 12:36 schrieb John Berard <john at crediblecontext.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> Thomas,
>>>
>>> Can you confirm you were arguing against early GAC input?
>>>
>>> Berard
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Nov 26, 2013, at 10:25 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike at haven2.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> Board/GAC/GNSO-Council...
>>>>
>>>> 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. :-)
>>>>
>>>> mikey
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
>>>> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> <GAC Engagement in GNSO PDP - updated 30 Oct 2013[1].doc>
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20131126/93e071c8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20131126/93e071c8/smime.p7s>
More information about the council
mailing list