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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I on the contrary see it as a real problem for ICANN.

This notion that grows in the GNSO council that WG can only communicate with 
the Board through them (or in this case through the ALAC or them) is first and 
foremost resistance to the cross community model bred in a fear by some in the 
GNSO Council that they will lose it power and potency it subordinate elements 
can speak with the Board.

They seem to confuse the idea of a group sending a report to the Board, whether 
intermediate or final, with sending an endorsement of a report to the Board.  
There is an assumption that if the Board gets its reports directly from WGs 
then they will no longer be needed. As opposed to what the Board really needs 
from the GNSO is not the report, but the GNSO council's view on the report with 
the indication of whether the Working Group functioned properly and went 
through a correct process in reaching a report.  

One problem with this, other than  the silly chain of command notion, is that 
for the GNSO council to review a report takes at least 5 weeks.  Two weeks to 
put it on the agenda and 3 weeks when it is held over to another meeting to 
allow the members of the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies to read and 
discuss. 5 weeks is not unreasonable, only ALAC seems to move more quickly in 
making its decisions these days.  The problem in this and other situations is 
that if we need to give the report to the GNSO 5 weeks before being able to 
give it to the Board, we may already be too late for our final report.

a.





On 13 Apr 2011, at 09:01, Alex Gakuru wrote:

> 
> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>