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

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 13 January 2011 22:23, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
>


This is not untenable.

When the WG finishes its work, each chartering or can choose what components
to support/approve.

I would note that the GNSO has not to date endorsed any of the interim work
of this WG, even under the charter that it approved at the beginning.



> 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.
>


Absolutely. My own concern is that the proposed GNSO charter effectively
changes the character of the JAS, away from recommending core changes to the
way ICANN presents obstacles and instead looking at JAS issues through a
model of add-on charity and handouts offered at the whim of donors.



> 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.
>

If a community that meets the criteria for reduced barriers has interest in
having its TLD as an IDN, it will know that need better than we will.


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.
>

This WG member is of the opinion that two having non-identical charters --
one being mostly a subset of the other -- is an unfortunate but survivable
circumstance.  I am completely opposed to confining the ALAC-approved
charter simply to sync with the GNSO one.

When the WG's work is done, each sponsoring org may choose which parts of
the final recommendations are within the scope of its defined charter and
are suitable for endorsement.



> 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.
>


Well, we have had a change of Co-Chairs, and we had been waiting for the
GNSO to sort this out. I would have liked a better resolution. But we have
what we have, and need to move on under this basis.

- Evan