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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

In my view, by only allowing 2 forms of aid:

- connection to a RSP
- connection to an advisor

and not allowing WG to work on financial aid, application fee reduction, or 
reduction in any of the post delegation fees they are limiting the types of aid 
we would be offer to those provided by someone who was already involved and 
running a TLD business of some sort, i.e. the incumbents in the TLD industry.

By not allowing for their to be any material assistance, they limit aid to 
those who have a partner of some sort.  And a partner of some sort when there 
are other avenues of aid such a fee reduction, grant or loans etc is a helping 
hand.  A partner when there is no other type of aid is problematic and 
restrictive, and as I argued a typical form of neocolonial assistance (not that 
I am blaming anyone of being a neocolonialist).

a.


On 14 Jan 2011, at 11:53, Richard Tindal wrote:

> 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>
>> 
>> 
> 
>