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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

OK.  So not incumbent in the sense of current service providers, but also 
anyone who becomes a service provider under the new program.

I didn't participate in the GNSO discussions on this, so I apologize for my 
ignorance,  but doesn't this GNSO charter item leave a fairly broad scope for 
the form of assistance?:

                b) Propose mechanisms for determining whether an application 
for special consideration should be granted and what sort of help should be 
offered;




On Jan 14, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> 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>
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>