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

["Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Alan, Avri, Alex and Eric,

 

Indeed, it’s disappointing.

 

But it was expected, and since Cartagena, we were convinced that it will
happen. 

We decided to try to find other constituencies to join the JAS WG, and we
were thinking especially to the GAC. We really need to get closer to them.
Who is taking the lead for such thing? I understood that Evan and Olivier
were trying. Is there any chance to have the GAC as a chartered organisation
for this WG?

 

In any case, I do stick to the version adopted by ALAC, and don’t see any
reason that ALAC changes and joins the GNSO version.

 

Yes Alan, it’s a pity that we lost the 2 or 3 last weeks. We were supposed
to rush and try to be on time for a proposal to the board before the launch
of the final DAG edition.    

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director 

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations

Phone : + 216 70 825 231

Mobile : + 216 98 330 114

Fax     : + 216 70 825 231

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Avri Doria
Envoyé : vendredi 14 janvier 2011 05:57
À : JAS
Cc : ALAC Working List
Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter

 

 

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>