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

[Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

I opine Jeff's comments are grounded on Board-Council-WG/WT communication
protocol recommendations on other work going on at ICANN that is about to be
completed.
-citing-
You can find all the relevant information in the announcement that was
used to communicate the opening of the public comment period:
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-21feb11-en.htm. Do
note that the public comment forum has now closed, but I presume the WT
would be happy to receive the NCSG comments so these can be added to the
public comment review tool for review.
- - end cite - -

However, I differ with his conclusion that this as proof of 'failure
of the cross working group model' since the above cited hopes to
address a long standing ICANN-wide challenge.

Regards,

Alex

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> All:
>
>
>
> I would like to clarify that we are only looking for an update on the
> status to the Board as they are addressing the GAC Scorecard. This is not
> the actual report and if there is no status report beyond “wait until end of
> May” this is what we convey.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Karla Valente
>
> +1 310 936 4639
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *On Behalf Of *Neuman, Jeff
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 12, 2011 6:13 PM
>
> *To:* 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 28thand 
> 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.
>
>
>