[ALAC-ExCom] Fwd: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [council] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations of its Charter

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Wed Apr 13 12:08:52 UTC 2011

Dear All:
I'm in Haiti on mission and having some difficulty securing reliable
Internet access so I'm just picking up this thread.

I can say with finality that the first time I heard of a report due by
Friday to the Board was from a message I picked up a few hours ago from
Karla Valente.  Since I was not available for this past Tuesday morning's
JAS call, I cannot now comment on related discussions..or decisions.... made

It might be unusual but as I understand it, the request is more so a kind of
milestone briefing. If confirmed and though 'unusual', it merits a response.
 For me, it also confirms an ICANN Board that is actively engaged with this
initiative.  And come to think, this might be the source of the heartburn
for some of the interests normally resident in the GNSO!

In terms of process, seems to me that it would be entirely rational for the
GNSO to be copied on whatever the WG decides is appropriately responsive to
the Board's request.

That way, we preserve the GNSO's self-ascribed  priestly intercessor role
for all communications to the Board.

Carlton Samuels
co-chair, JAS WG

Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:39 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>wrote:

> Dear Jeff,
> I am in receipt of the message you have sent to the GNSO council (quoted
> below) concerning the JAS working group alleged violation of its
> charter. Whilst I agree with your comments that the JAS working group
> has no business reporting directly to the Board without the authority of
> the GNSO council or the ALAC, I disagree with your conclusions which
> paint a completely incorrect picture of the JAS WG discussions.
> Unless any of the two co-Chairs, Rafik Dammak and Carlton Samuels, have
> made an announcement in the last few minutes, there has been no
> consensus decision that the JAS Working Group would provide direct input
> to the ICANN Board without consultations with either the GNSO or the
> ALAC. Similarly, I have seen no proof whatsoever that a consensus
> decision has been made for the JAS Working Group to deliver its final
> report in May directly to the Board.
> Rather, a demand has been expressed by a *staff member*, relaying an
> unsubstantiated demand from the Board for a report to be sent to them by
> the end of this week. It appears that this was actually not a specific
> demand, but an extrapolation made from a need for all input for the GAC
> scorecard to be examined by the Board, to be "in" by this Friday. I am
> yet to understand what is fact and fiction, and after questioning the
> source of this alleged "demand", have disappointingly received no reply
> to substantiate any "demand" from the Board.
> This "demand" was then conveyed and expanded by one of the normal
> members of the working group. That member has, at no time, purported to
> act in any official capacity, and has acted out of their own initiative
> to make progress in writing such a report - forgetting about due process
> and about the fact that neither of the Chairs of the Working Group had
> ever received a demand for an interim report.
> In other words, this is a non-event, until a formal demand is made by
> the Board. The JAS Working Group might choose to file an interim status
> report with the GNSO & ALAC and either (or both) might choose to convey
> it to the Board. At this point in time, neither is obliged to do so.
> Finally, I deplore your allegation of "failure of the cross working
> group model". Jeff, you are jumping to conclusions based on incorrect
> allegations and IMHO this is not productive. If my message has not made
> it to the GNSO Council list, I should be grateful of you could please be
> so kind to forward it there to set the facts straight.
> Warm regards,
> Olivier Crépin-Leblond
> (speaking in my personal capacity since I have not had the time to
> consult the ALAC due to time pressures)
> > From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
> > To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> > Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:12:51 -0400
> > Subject: [council] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations of its
> >  Charter
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I wanted to bring to the Council?s attention a discussion on the JAS
> > Working Group list which is concerning to me because the conversation
> > by both the Working Group and ICANN staff, and the planned action
> > items, are in direct contravention to the approved JAS Working Group
> > Charter.  Bottom line is that the JAS Working Group is not only
> > providing direct input to the ICANN Board without consultations with
> > the GNSO (or even the ALAC), but the JAS Working Group is also
> > planning on delivering its final report in May directly to the ICANN
> > Board without ?the input and consideration by the respective
> > supporting organizations (GNSO and ALAC).?  I believe the Council
> > _must _take immediate action in order to enforce the Charter we have
> > all approved.  To fail to do so would be an abdication of our
> > responsibilities and more importantly, would constitute a complete
> > failure of the bottom-up policy process.
> >
> > On January 13, 2011, the GNSO Council approved a ?Joint SO/AC Working
> > Group on support for new gTLD applicants (JAS)? that included the
> > following provisions:
> > ?3. The Working group shall report its results and present a final
> > report directly to the GNSO Council and the ALAC for discussion and
> > adoption, as appropriate, according to their own rules and procedures.
> > 4. All communication to the ICANN Board regarding the work of this
> > Working Group shall be through the respective SO/AC unless expressly
> > approved by the respective SO/AC.?  See
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/Charter+as+approved+by+the+GNSO+Council
> > .
> >
> > Despite the clear words of the Charter to ?report its results and
> > present a final report to the GNSO Council? and to ensure that ?All
> > communication to the ICANN Board regarding the work of this Working
> > Group shall be through the respective SO/AC?, the JAS working group on
> > its own initiative (and with some help from ICANN staff) is going in
> > the complete opposite direction.
> >
> > On the JAS mailing list on April 12th, in a post from Avri Doria to
> > the  JAS Group, in referring to criteria for a fee waiver program, the
> > following was stated:
> >
> >
> > ?We have a requirement to give the Board a draft on Friday, and the
> > work currently being done is not close to being ready on this
> > issue.?  See
> >
> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg01378.html
> > .  More discussion took place between the working group about this
> > report to be delivered not to the GNSO (or ALAC), but directly to the
> > ICANN Board.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In a subsequent post from Karla Valente (ICANN staff) to the Working
> > Group entitled ?call today and summary for the Board?, the following was
> > stated:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ?Please know that I conveyed to Peter and Kurt that there will be a
> > summary for the Board by Friday AND that the work done by Friday will not
> > be the actual "Final Report", which is scheduled to be ready
> >
> > for end of May. I also added that this summary, due to time
> > constrains [sp.], will not have the input and consideration by the
> > respective supporting organizations (GNSO and ALAC).
> >
> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg01381.html?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I am requesting that this formally be added to our agenda for April
> > 28^th and request that until that time no summary of work be provided
> > by the JAS working group to the Board without review by the GNSO.
> > This again shows the failure of the cross working group model and the
> > lack of recognition that persons participating in working groups are
> > there in their own individual capacities and not on behalf of their
> > constituency, stakeholder group, advisory committee or even the GNSO.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > *Jeffrey J. Neuman
> > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy*
> > 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
> > *Office: *+1.571.434.5772  *Mobile: *+1.202.549.5079  *Fax:
> > *+1.703.738.7965 */* jeff.neuman at neustar.biz
> > <mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz>   */* www.neustar.biz
> > <http://www.neustar.biz/>
> > Please note new address starting March 21, 2011:  21575 Ridgetop
> > Circle, Sterling VA 20166
> >
> > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
> > the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
> > and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient
> > you have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
> > dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
> > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> > notify us immediately and delete the original message.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC-ExCom mailing list
> ALAC-ExCom at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom

More information about the ALAC-ExCom mailing list