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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Hi Avri,

Not to diminish other concerns with the GNSO charter, but I don't read their 
document as allowing aid only in conjunction with an incumbent.

Which part do you feel indicates that?

Thanks

Richard


On Jan 13, 2011, at 9:56 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>
> 
>