[ALAC] [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter

Evan Leibovitch evan at telly.org
Fri Jan 14 21:17:08 UTC 2011


On 14 January 2011 01:05, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:


> Regarding what the ALAC does, it is a bit problematic. I also would
> like to see the group continue on the path addressing a variety of
> support methodologies. But I also see a real problem raising its head
> if one of the first multiple-SO/AC chartered groups cannot really be
> a joint operation. It does not bode well for future efforts.
>

Clearly this problem was not considered important by the GNSO when it voted
down the WG-proposed (and ALAC-endorsed) WG charter.

It is at least fortunate in that one charter seems to be largely a subset of
the other, wordsmithing pedantry aside.

GNSO has chartered work-list "A"
ALAC has chartered work-lists "A" and "B".

The WG works on both A and B.

When its work is complete, GNSO votes to endorse "A" and ALAC votes to
endorse "A" plus "B".
So some of the recommendations can be made jointly, and some will only come
from ALAC.

Not optimal, but not problematic either.

- Evan



>
> Alan
>
> At 13/01/2011 11:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> >Alan,
> >
> >Thank you for forwarding that.
> >
> >I think you are too kind in your reference to the charter approved
> >by the GNSO.
> >
> >
> >As far I ca tell it only approves aid, when that aid is in
> >partnership with an incumbent.  While this was one type of aid the
> >JAS group was recommending, to provide only this form of aid strike
> >me as a form of neocolonialism where of those helped would only be
> >helped by an incumbent partner.  No fee reductions.  No financial
> >aid.  Just partnership with an incumbent.  Is this really something
> >this group can just accept?
> >
> >The GNSO motion takes another unconscionable step in trying to
> >prevent the JAS WG from sharing it results and recommendations with
> >anyone other than the chartering organization.  That is, it would
> >establish a military style chain of command for all JAS WG
> >recommendations that would bar the group from communicating with the
> >Board , the GAC or the community at large.   I do not believe this
> >sort of top down restriction of WG flexibility should be accepted.
> >
> >It is my fervent hope, that the ALAC does not change its JAS charter
> >based on the GNSO motion.
> >
> >As for why we haven't met yet, I can only imagine that the new
> >co-chairs are catching their breath after the holidays.  And I know
> >that Rafik has been busy banging his head against the wall of the
> >Contracted Parties House representatives in the GNSO trying to gain
> >support or the charter we proposed.  As a member of the GNSO council
> >he is stuck between a rock and a hard place and I do not envy his
> position.
> >
> >I personally think we should just charge ahead on the charter as
> >specified by the ALAC.
> >
> >a.
> >
> >
> >On 13 Jan 2011, at 22:23, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> >
> > > At its meeting today, the GNSO approved a new charter for the JAS
> > group. This charter differs significantly from the one that was
> > originally proposed to the GNSO and later approved by the ALAC at
> > its November 2010 meeting.
> > >
> > > I have formatted both charters for a left-right comparison and it
> > is attached.
> > >
> > > The ALAC must now decide which path to follow:
> > >
> > > 1. Adjust its charter to match the new GNSO one;  or
> > >
> > > 2. Keep the existing charter or modify it somewhat. This would
> > mean that the WG is working to two different charters simultaneously.
> > >
> > > I am not a fan of the new charter. I find it far too controlling
> > and eliminates actions which the WG felt were important when the
> > revised charter was first drafted.
> > >
> > > The vote for this charter was preceded by much discussion and a
> > vote on the original charter as well as an amendment which would
> > have significantly augmented the final version, both of which
> > failed. The charter does include a specific item on IDN, an option
> > that the WG had considered but later decided not to include.
> > >
> > > The final vote was very close, and nearly failed. A failure would
> > have left the WG unchartered (un-re-chartered?) by the GNSO, a
> > situation that would also have been difficult to handle. But for
> > whatever reasons, we now have the two charters as shown in the
> attachment.
> > >
> > > Obviously (to me in any case), the ALAC should seek the thoughts
> > of the WG members regarding how it should proceed.
> > >
> > > I also note that after the Cartagena meeting (where the GNSO had
> > not approved the draft charter), there was a strong feeling within the WG
> that:
> > >
> > > - it had an expanded charter from the ALAC;
> > > - the original charter from the GNSO was thought be some to allow
> > further work, even if not specified in detail;
> > > - work should proceed without delay.
> > >
> > > For reasons that I do not fully understand, that has not
> > happened, and I do not believe that the group has met at all this year.
> > >
> > > Alan<Charters.pdf>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
>



-- 
- Evan


More information about the ALAC mailing list