[council] Final GAC communique
Mike O'Connor
mike at haven2.com
Wed Nov 27 16:56:07 UTC 2013
i'm in.
mikey
On Nov 27, 2013, at 10:51 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info> wrote:
>
> Great to have this level of engagement on a topic!
>
> A couple of points on status:
>
> 1. The issue arises formally from a recommendation of ATRT 1 i.e. that the
> GAC should engage earlier with the GNSO PDP.
> 2. My interpretation is:
> a) that it is intended that this engagement / input should be such that when
> (and if) the GAC does provide Advice (to the Board), it is at least not
> unexpected and, at best, consistent with GNSO policy / policy advice.
> And
> b) that the GAC's input (to the GNSO policy work) should be focussed
> primarily on the potential (or actual) public policy implications of the
> corresponding GNSO policy work.
>
> Of course, the devil is in both the detail and the expectations of the
> format of and response to the input of the GAC. That is what the table that
> Marika sent around attempts to start to flesh out.
> And, therefore, the scope of the joint team to try to make progress on.
>
> I received an update today from Manal which suggests that the GAC may
> participate with as many as 6 participants. In which case, it seems to me,
> that we need a balanced number of participants.
> Should that be the case, some of you on this thread may wish to volunteer to
> participate.
>
> To set expectations, I am anticipating that we'll have a mailing list and
> regular calls (say 2 weekly), not dissimilar to a GNSO working group.
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org]
> Sent: 26 November 2013 17:53
> To: Mary Wong
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique
>
>
> Interesting. Thanks Mary.
>
> Amr
>
> On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:43 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>
>> For the benefit of some of the newer participants among us and the
>> GNSO community - note that even when GAC members participate in WGs,
>> they do not do so as representatives of the GAC, or even their own
>> countries, though they may of course be able to inform the WG of
>> either the GAC's position (if there is one) on the issue at hand. The
>> GAC has been very firm about this, and it may partly have to do with
>> how GAC consensus is achieved - as in other multi-lateral forums,
>> "consensus" is reached if there is no objection by a GAC member to a
> particular position.
>> Conversely, if just one GAC member objects to a particular position,
>> there is therefore no consensus. This is of course different from how
>> GNSO PDPs and WGs work.
>>
>> As Marika has mentioned, this discussion could be helpful to the small
>> group from the GNSO that will be discussing methods of early
>> engagement with/from the GAC, mindful of Thomas' distinction between
>> GAC Advice (as conceived in the ICANN Bylaws) and GAC input.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Mary
>>
>>
>> Mary Wong
>> Senior Policy Director
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>>
>> * One World. One Internet. *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>> Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 12:18 PM
>> To: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [council] Final GAC communique
>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the clarification Thomas. It makes a lot of sense to be
>>> wary of what kind of early engagement we¹d like to encourage from the
>>> GAC, and I don¹t find it surprising that there seems to be a general
>>> sense of agreement here on how this should be done.
>>>
>>> I, like others, feel it would be great to have more GAC
>>> representatives become involved in PDP WGs, but cannot confidently
>>> predict how this would affect the GAC reaction at-large. I am not
>>> familiar with how the GAC collectively reaches a position on PDP
>>> outcomes. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that these positions are
>>> prepared by only a handful of their members. If anyone else has
>>> insights on how this is done, I¹d appreciate it if you shared.
>>>
>>> Like Chuck said, we do have two GAC reps on the policy and
>>> implementation WG, but this is not a PDP WG. And unless I am mistaken
>>> (and please correct me if I¹m wrong on this Chuck), their
>>> participation both during calls and on-list is quite limited. I bring
>>> this up because encouraging GAC members to join WGs is one thing, and
>>> encouraging them to actively engage in the consensus development of
> policy recommendations is another.
>>> I hope we can encourage them to do both. I am curious to see how
>>> interaction at this level (the WG level) might affect GAC Advice
>>> (capital
>>> A) and their collective perception of the necessity and manner of
>>> early engagement.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Nov 26, 2013, at 5:30 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ah!
>>>>
>>>> *very* helpful. thanks Thomas for taking the time to craft that reply.
>>>> and thanks to John for picking up how i misunderstood the core of
>>>> Thomas' argument.
>>>>
>>>> i agree with you that capital-A advice would indeed be complicated
>>>> for a WG to handle, given that the goal of WG discussion is to
>>>> arrive at positions that are usually different from the starting
>>>> points of each participant.
>>>>
>>>> does Berry's contribution to this thread (describing USG comments
>>>> during a comment period) provide an avenue for slightly-less-firm
>>>> input from the GAC, or GAC members? while WG's are not required to
>>>> incorporate comments into their final positions, they ARE required
>>>> to respond to each comment -- which might provide an avenue for dialog.
>>>> focusing on developing that approach might lead us to a good middle
>>>> ground between the WG's need for flexibility/negotiation and the
>>>> GAC's need for structure and due deliberation.
>>>>
>>>> m
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 26, 2013, at 10:14 AM, 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.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
>>>> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
-------------- 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/20131127/54d9657f/smime.p7s>
More information about the council
mailing list