[ALAC] [council] Message from Kurt Pritz

Evan Leibovitch evan at telly.org
Thu May 10 15:18:54 UTC 2012

On 10 May 2012 09:43, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> > > JAS: ALAC and GNSO Council agreed that JAS group
> > > could continue to work on implementation. JAS
> > > group is doing that and had now made an explicit
> > > recommendation that a "Son of JAS" be involved in
> > > carrying out implementation. If the GNSO Council
> > > desires, that recommendation can go to the GNSO
> > > COuncil instead of being implemented immediately.

I guess I'm confused.

GNSO and ALAC say "keep going"
JAS says "to keep going we will form a slightly different group that
carries out implememntation rather than policy"

Why does this need to go back?
When did the g-council get involved in implementation micromanagement?

>Why does it even need approval at all.  It is obvious that one power
> >the ICANN Staff has, and should have, is the ability to bring in
> >advisors on any process.  If they wish to use JAS experienced
> >advisors in the implementations and deployment of a plan suggested
> >by JAS, who is the g-council to tell them they can't?

Maybe it's merely a matter of optics.
Staff bringing on ex-JAS advisors sounds different than "son-of-JAS WG
populated by staff and ex-JAS advisors"

I didn't say anything about the GNSO Council being the sole one to
> decide anything. My version was based on prior GNSO Council positions
> (and I think in the current charter) that says a working group cannot
> report directly to staff/Board but any recommendation must got
> through chartering bodies.

We've been down this road. And we know how it ends. Lots of wringing of
hands and gnashing of teeth, but the job gets done.

- Evan

More information about the ALAC mailing list