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

["Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Alan.

ALAC shouldn’t change the Charter adopted, and at the end, we should clearly
say under which charter each recommendation falls.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director 

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations

Phone : + 216 70 825 231

Mobile : + 216 98 330 114

Fax     : + 216 70 825 231

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

  _____  

De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Alan Greenberg
Envoyé : mardi 18 janvier 2011 04:28
À : Andrew Mack; Eric Brunner-Williams
Cc : JAS
Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter

 

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 <http://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