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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sending this message to both lists was probably a mistake, because I 
suspect that those without posting rights on the other list will be 
held for moderation or bounced.
In any case two small reply comments.

Regarding being kind, I was trying really hard to present what 
happened and not editorialize. I know a bit sneaked in.
Regarding the chain of command, I was amused by that but not really 
worried, as the chartering body is the NORMAL place to submit a 
report, and if there is some reason that this needs to be bypassed 
for expediency or whatever, I have faith that at least the ALAC would 
bless that. If a document is submitted by the WG to (say) the Board, 
it is still just a WG opinion and not that of the chartering body 
(which is what caused my amusement.
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.
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>