[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations of its Charter

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

fyi,  a proposal for gagging of the JAS by the GNSO Council

Forwarding this on since the email i sent seems to have piqued the GNSO Council 
concern.

So now we have both the ALAC saying we should not rush to satisfy the Board's 
request, and the GNSO Council saying we are not allowed to satisfy the Board's 
request.

I guess I made a real mistake in offering a proposal.


My apologies.

a.

Begin forwarded message:


> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 13 April 2011 03:12:51 GMT+02:00
> To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [council] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations of its 
> Charter
> 
> All,
>  
> I wanted to bring to the Council’s attention a discussion on the JAS Working 
> Group list which is concerning to me because the conversation by both the 
> Working Group and ICANN staff, and the planned action items, are in direct 
> contravention to the approved JAS Working Group Charter.  Bottom line is that 
> the JAS Working Group is not only providing direct input to the ICANN Board 
> without consultations with the GNSO (or even the ALAC), but the JAS Working 
> Group is also planning on delivering its final report in May directly to the 
> ICANN Board without “the input and consideration by the respective supporting 
> organizations (GNSO and ALAC).”  I believe the Council must take immediate 
> action in order to enforce the Charter we have all approved.  To fail to do 
> so would be an abdication of our responsibilities and more importantly, would 
> constitute a complete failure of the bottom-up policy process.
>  
> On January 13, 2011, the GNSO Council approved a “Joint SO/AC Working Group 
> on support for new gTLD applicants (JAS)” that included the following 
> provisions:
> “3. The Working group shall report its results and present a final report 
> directly to the GNSO Council and the ALAC for discussion and adoption, as 
> appropriate, according to their own rules and procedures.
> 
> 4. All communication to the ICANN Board regarding the work of this Working 
> Group shall be through the respective SO/AC unless expressly approved by the 
> respective SO/AC.”  See 
> https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/Charter+as+approved+by+the+GNSO+Council.
>  
> 
>  
> Despite the clear words of the Charter to “report its results and present a 
> final report to the GNSO Council” and to ensure that “All communication to 
> the ICANN Board regarding the work of this Working Group shall be through the 
> respective SO/AC”, the JAS working group on its own initiative (and with some 
> help from ICANN staff) is going in the complete opposite direction.
>  
> On the JAS mailing list on April 12th, in a post from Avri Doria to the  JAS 
> Group, in referring to criteria for a fee waiver program, the following was 
> stated:
>  
> “We have a requirement to give the Board a draft on Friday, and the work 
> currently being done is not close to being ready on this issue.”  See  
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg01378.html.  More 
> discussion took place between the working group about this report to be 
> delivered not to the GNSO (or ALAC), but directly to the ICANN Board.  
>  
> In a subsequent post from Karla Valente (ICANN staff) to the Working Group 
> entitled “call today and summary for the Board”, the following was stated:
>  
> “Please know that I conveyed to Peter and Kurt that there will be a summary 
> for the Board by Friday AND that the work done by Friday will not be the 
> actual "Final Report", which is scheduled to be ready 
> for end of May. I also added that this summary, due to time constrains [sp.], 
> will not have the input and consideration by the respective supporting 
> organizations (GNSO and ALAC).  
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg01381.html”
>  
> I am requesting that this formally be added to our agenda for April 28th and 
> request that until that time no summary of work be provided by the JAS 
> working group to the Board without review by the GNSO.  This again shows the 
> failure of the cross working group model and the lack of recognition that 
> persons participating in working groups are there in their own individual 
> capacities and not on behalf of their constituency, stakeholder group, 
> advisory committee or even the GNSO.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
> Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
> jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  / www.neustar.biz
> Please note new address starting March 21, 2011:  21575 Ridgetop Circle, 
> Sterling VA 20166    
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
> of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete 
> the original message.
>