[ALAC] Fwd: Re: JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Jan 18 03:32:31 UTC 2011

Following is the latest round in the discussion of the New gTLD 
Applicant Support Charter discussion.

I would suggest that this is a topic that should be discussed and 
potentially resolved during next week's ALAC meeting.  Although 
clearly this may not be fully resolved, I would like to be able to 
give an update of where we are at the February 3rd GNSO Council meeting.

See my note below for a possible way forward. As noted, I have not 
fully thought it through or discussed it, but it may be a viable way forward.


>To: Andrew Mack <amack at amglobal.com>, Eric Brunner-Williams 
><ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter
>Cc: JAS <soac-newgtldapsup-wg at icann.org>
>Given the amount of time that the GNSO has taken (discussion time, 
>not elapsed), I do not see much interest in re-opening this 
>discussion in the near future. If the ALAC decides to (basically) 
>stay where it is with its charter (perhaps adding the IDN issue), 
>then there can be some discussion between the ALAC and GNSO, 
>although I do not quite know what format such discussions would 
>take. Ultimately, for the GNSO to adopt a more liberal Charter, it 
>will take a vote of the Council and I do not see such a vote passing.
>I have not thought this through or discussed it with anyone, but the 
>only path forward that seems to make sense is for the WG to continue 
>and in its final report, make it crystal clear which recommendations 
>fall under which charter(s) allowing the parent bodies to adopt 
>their part if they wish.
>At 17/01/2011 09:42 PM, Andrew Mack wrote:
>>I too am concerned that the Neuman draft is too limiting and was 
>>disappointed that this became an issue.  I agree that taking all 
>>discussion of real money off the table overly limits our discussion 
>>and is unlikely to move us forward as we'd like.  That said, it 
>>does seem that there should be some sort of compromise possible in 
>>the wordsmithing, since as Alan says the GNSO version is mostly 
>>contained in the ALAC version.
>>As for what Eric says below, while there wasn't full consensus on 
>>what work we'd do to support minority languages and scripts, I 
>>didn't read our report as saying we shouldn't continue with the 
>>work.  As there are at least a few of us that would like to 
>>continue this -- and since it affects so many people and clearly 
>>has some GNSO support -- I would like to see us keep it on our list.
>>My apologies as I won't be able to be on the call tomorrow, but 
>>will be there for the next one.
>>Regards, Andrew
>>Andrew A. Mack
>>AMGlobal Consulting
>>+1-202-642-6429  <mailto:amack at amglobal.com>amack at amglobal.com
>>2001 Massachusetts Avenue, NW  First Floor
>>Washington, DC 20036
>>From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
>>To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>>Cc: ALAC Working List <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; JAS 
>><soac-newgtldapsup-wg at icann.org>
>>Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 12:19:14 PM
>>Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter
>>Thank you Alan.
>>I don't recall how something we spent as much time on as minority 
>>languages was excluded from the proposed charter that Rafiq 
>>proposed to the Names Council, but that is water under the bridge.

More information about the ALAC mailing list