[council] Final GAC communique

Amr Elsadr aelsadr at egyptig.org
Wed Nov 27 18:29:31 UTC 2013

Me too. 



Sent from mobile

> On Nov 27, 2013, at 5:56 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com> wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20131127/f9f9d77c/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list