[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 19:35:07 UTC 2011


Actually no, I didn't.  But quite frankly the line reflects my considered
view.

The view that only GNSO is empowered to speak to the Board - regardless of
capacity or objective - on WG matters sticks my craw!

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


On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> 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
>
>



More information about the ALAC-ExCom mailing list