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

[Cintra Sooknanan <cintra.sooknanan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Alex,

Can you provide some clarification? Are you suggesting that we re-craft our
Charter such that it follows the GNSO Charter (so that the scope they
provided is the common reference point) and then set out our additional
scope of work be included under a unique (only in ALAC Charter) section?

Regards

Cintra

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Just like the GNSO picks and chooses what recommendations to accept and
> which ones not to, I believe this is our turn to also pick and choose which,
> but one, charter to work under? It would be such a mess and multiplication
> of work to get down to perhaps even pointing out which sentence(s) relates
> to GNSO or ALAC charter. It would be far more clearer to everyone if have
> the reference point from the onset. Recalling how often the WG  kept
> referring to the Board's Nairobi resolution for guidance.
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Alan Greenberg 
> <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>
>> Given the amount of time that the GNSO has taken (discussion time, not
>> elapsed), I do not see much interest in re-opening this discussion in the
>> near future. If the ALAC decides to (basically) stay where it is with its
>> charter (perhaps adding the IDN issue), then there can be some discussion
>> between the ALAC and GNSO, although I do not quite know what format such
>> discussions would take. Ultimately, for the GNSO to adopt a more liberal
>> Charter, it will take a vote of the Council and I do not see such a vote
>> passing.
>>
>> I have not thought this through or discussed it with anyone, but the only
>> path forward that seems to make sense is for the WG to continue and in its
>> final report, make it crystal clear which recommendations fall under which
>> charter(s) allowing the parent bodies to adopt their part if they wish.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>> At 17/01/2011 09:42 PM, Andrew Mack wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I too am concerned that the Neuman draft is too limiting and was
>> disappointed that this became an issue.  I agree that taking all discussion
>> of real money off the table overly limits our discussion and is unlikely to
>> move us forward as we'd like.  That said, it does seem that there should be
>> some sort of compromise possible in the wordsmithing, since as Alan says the
>> GNSO version is mostly contained in the ALAC version.
>>
>> As for what Eric says below, while there wasn't full consensus on what
>> work we'd do to support minority languages and scripts, I didn't read our
>> report as saying we shouldn't continue with the work.  As there are at least
>> a few of us that would like to continue this -- and since it affects so many
>> people and clearly has some GNSO support -- I would like to see us keep it
>> on our list.
>>
>> My apologies as I won't be able to be on the call tomorrow, but will be
>> there for the next one.
>> Regards, Andrew
>>
>> *Andrew A. Mack*
>> *Principal
>> *AMGlobal Consulting
>>
>> +1-202-642-6429  amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 2001 Massachusetts Avenue, NW  First Floor
>> Washington, DC 20036
>> www.amglobal.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
>> *Cc:* ALAC Working List <alac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; JAS <
>> soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
>> *Sent:* Fri, January 14, 2011 12:19:14 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG
>> Charter
>>
>>
>> Thank you Alan.
>>
>> I don't recall how something we spent as much time on as minority
>> languages was excluded from the proposed charter that Rafiq proposed to the
>> Names Council, but that is water under the bridge.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>