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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

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>