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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Apr 13 16:45:02 UTC 2011


Carlton does not have posting privileges on that 
list, and I think (but am not sure) that such 
messages are just rejected and not held for moderator approval.

But it did go to Jeff and others.

At 13/04/2011 11:49 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>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
>_______________________________________________
>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