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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 14/01/2011 04:17 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:


> On 14 January 2011 01:05, Alan Greenberg 
> <<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>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.
Well, in fact it was a major issue of discussion. In the end, I 
diffused a call for additional discussion about what to do with the 
conflicting (or at least different) charters by saying that the issue 
does not exist until the ALAC decides not to change its charter to be 
in line with the GNSO one. So as this discussion seems to be heading, 
it will come up at the GNSO again.
But more important, there was the start of a discussion that went 
something like this (my paraphrasing, but I can point you to the 
relevant part of the transcript once it is available):
- cross-SO/AC working groups may be powerful ways of attacking some 
class of problems;
- BEFORE we go ahead with them, we should fully understand all of the 
implications;
- one of the implied difficulties is just the one that has come up 
now - synchronizing the different SO/AC's.
It was pointed out that it is a bit late to be having this discussion 
regarding the JAS group, since it was already chartered (and is now 
supposed to be working to address specific Board-requested issues), 
but it will come back up again.
As I have already mentioned, the GNSO is currently VERY 
process-focused. This is understandable with regard to formal 
Consensus policy, but it extends way past that.
Alan