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

[Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,
I agree with the option of Cintra


SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN

*COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
 ACADEMIE DES TIC
*COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
*MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
*AT-LARGE MEMBER (ICANN)
*NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243811980914
email                  : b.schombe@xxxxxxxxx
blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net



2011/1/14 Cintra Sooknanan <cintra.sooknanan@xxxxxxxxx>

> Hi Alan,
>
> I agree that the new WG Charter is very limited in scope and may not
> provide an effective or sustainable mechanism for access to application
> support. I do think we should maintain our previous Charter.
>
> However it is important that ALAC and GNSO work in this area is
> co-ordinated. Perhaps, we can seek clarification from them as to why they
> have lowered the bar on their scope and contribution so significantly (for
> better understanding and in order to help us determine if we should do the
> same)?
>
> Also, if we ultimately cannot agree to a single or synchronised Charter, we
> may wish to request that a clause be added be added to each of our
> individual Charters which will acknowledge and support the work done by the
> other.
>
> Regards
> Cintra
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:05 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.
>>
>> 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>
>>>
>>
>>
>