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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I agree

RT


On Jan 14, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> 
> 
> On 14 January 2011 01:05, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  
> Regarding what the ALAC does, it is a bit problematic. I also would
> like to see the group continue on the path addressing a variety of
> support methodologies. But I also see a real problem raising its head
> if one of the first multiple-SO/AC chartered groups cannot really be
> a joint operation. It does not bode well for future efforts.
> 
> Clearly this problem was not considered important by the GNSO when it voted 
> down the WG-proposed (and ALAC-endorsed) WG charter.
> 
> It is at least fortunate in that one charter seems to be largely a subset of 
> the other, wordsmithing pedantry aside.
> 
> GNSO has chartered work-list "A"
> ALAC has chartered work-lists "A" and "B".
> 
> The WG works on both A and B.
> 
> When its work is complete, GNSO votes to endorse "A" and ALAC votes to 
> endorse "A" plus "B".
> So some of the recommendations can be made jointly, and some will only come 
> from ALAC.
> 
> Not optimal, but not problematic either.
> 
> - Evan
> 
>  
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 13/01/2011 11:56 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>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> 
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> - Evan