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

Evan Leibovitch evan at telly.org
Wed Apr 13 15:49:36 UTC 2011


Carlton,

Were you aware that this mail -- which talks about the "GNSO's self-ascribed
 priestly intercessor role" -- has been sent to the GNSO Council mailing
list?

Ah, Wednesdays.

- Evan

PS: Olivier, I am 100% in support of what you said in your email to Jeff.
While you said you sent it as an individual it has my complete endorsement.



On 13 April 2011 08:08, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> there.
>
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC-ExCom mailing list
> ALAC-ExCom at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom
>



-- 
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56



More information about the ALAC-ExCom mailing list