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

[Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>
> 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.
>

But I would appreciate your reply of my message also to both lists...


> 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>
>>
>
>