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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Latest chapter in the saga of who is allowed to talk to the board and when.

I would like to take issue with one statement:

> This "demand" was then conveyed and expanded by one of the normal members of 
> the working group. That member has, at no time, purported to act in any 
> official capacity, and has acted out of their own initiative to make progress 
> in writing such a report - forgetting about due process and about the fact 
> that neither of the Chairs of the Working Group had ever received a demand 
> for an interim report.

I would like to know in what way i ignored due process.  I worked on something 
as a suggestion and sent it to the group for consideration.  I put it on the 
table and then offered to explain it.  

I did not send it to the Board.

I did not say it should replace the work being done.

I did not even grab try to back the editor's pen as one of the editor's group 
accused me of in private.

I did indicate that i thought the suggestion filled a niche that had not been 
filled yet and left it the chairs and the group of editors to deal with it.  
Yes, I believe that we are about to lose any opportunity to produce a useful 
result, but expressing such an opinion should be my right.

In what way did I forget due process?  

I also find the undertone of criticism of Karla in this note problematic.  She 
has done nothing other than try to help us while we flounder around getting 
closer and closer to missing deadlines.  Even if she was wrong about needing to 
submit something this week, she does no deserve such approbation.

a.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 13 April 2011 13:19:31 GMT+02:00
> To: "'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Fw: Fwd: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [council] Concerns over JAS 
> Working Group and Violations of its Charter
> 
> Fyi, I received this from Olivier this morning and not sure he can publish to 
> the Council list.
> 
> I will separately post a response.
> 
> Thanks. 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
> Vice President, Law & Policy 
> NeuStar, Inc. 
> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> 
> 
>  
> From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 05:39 AM
> To: Neuman, Jeff 
> Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx>; ALAC EXCOM 
> <alac-excom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx> 
> Subject: Fwd: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [council] Concerns over JAS Working 
> Group and Violations of its Charter 
>  
> Dear Jeff,
> 
> I am in receipt of the message you have sent to the GNSO council (quoted 
> below) concerning the JAS working group alleged violation of its charter. 
> Whilst I agree with your comments that the JAS working group has no business 
> reporting directly to the Board without the authority of the GNSO council or 
> the ALAC, I disagree with your conclusions which paint a completely incorrect 
> picture of the JAS WG discussions.
> 
> Unless any of the two co-Chairs, Rafik Dammak and Carlton Samuels, have made 
> an announcement in the last few minutes, there has been no consensus decision 
> that the JAS Working Group would provide direct input to the ICANN Board 
> without consultations with either the GNSO or the ALAC. Similarly, I have 
> seen no proof whatsoever that a consensus decision has been made for the JAS 
> Working Group to deliver its final report in May directly to the Board.
> 
> Rather, a demand has been expressed by a *staff member*, relaying an 
> unsubstantiated demand from the Board for a report to be sent to them by the 
> end of this week. It appears that this was actually not a specific demand, 
> but an extrapolation made from a need for all input for the GAC scorecard to 
> be examined by the Board, to be "in" by this Friday. I am yet to understand 
> what is fact and fiction, and after questioning the source of this alleged 
> "demand", have disappointingly received no reply to substantiate any "demand" 
> from     the Board.
> 
> This "demand" was then conveyed and expanded by one of the normal members of 
> the working group. That member has, at no time, purported to act in any 
> official capacity, and has acted out of their own initiative to make progress 
> in writing such a report - forgetting about due process and about the fact 
> that neither of the Chairs of the Working Group had ever received a demand 
> for an interim report.
> 
> In other words, this is a non-event, until a formal demand is made by the 
> Board. The JAS Working Group might choose to file an interim status report 
> with the GNSO & ALAC and either (or both) might choose to convey it to the 
> Board. At this point in time, neither is obliged to do so.
> 
> Finally, I deplore your allegation of "failure of the cross working group 
> model". Jeff, you are jumping to conclusions based on incorrect allegations 
> and IMHO this is not productive. If my message has not made it to the GNSO 
> Council list, I should be grateful of you could please be so kind to forward 
> it there to set the facts straight.
> 
> Warm regards,
> 
> Olivier Crépin-Leblond
> (speaking in my personal capacity since I have not had the time to consult 
> the ALAC due to time pressures)
> 
>> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:12:51 -0400
>> 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.
>>