Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter
To be clear, the GNSO does NOT pick and choose what recommendations to accept and which ones to not accept. The current mode of operation is as the manager of the policy (and other) processes. As such, it will generally (essentially always) either accept or reject an entire report. Rejection may result in sending it back to the WG, or it just dies. That is why I made a point of saying that the report had to identify which parts were under the GNSO charter so that they could potentially be accepted as a unit. Alan At 18/01/2011 02:09 AM, Alex Gakuru 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 <<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>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 <mailto:amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx>amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2001 Massachusetts Avenue, NW First Floor Washington, DC 20036 <http://www.amglobal.com/>www.amglobal.comFrom: Eric Brunner-Williams <<mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: ALAC Working List <<mailto:alac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>alac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; JAS <<mailto:soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>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
|