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

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx>]

Avri,

you did not ignore due process. You forgot about due process. That's not
the same thing.
Forgetting about due process is not remembering that the process for the
JAS group to address the Board is defined in its charter(s). Ignoring
due process would be to act against the charter(s) - and you did not do
this, so I am only trying to mitigate any wrongful accusation made
against the group that the group is violating its charter - and I am
doing this as an individual, not as ALAC Chair.
As for criticism of Karla - I am yet to see if the Board has indeed
asked for a report to be filed by the end of the week. From her more
recent response, and I am glad she has explained this, it now appears
that this is not the case. It's nothing personal - it's just to clear
the facts from the assumptions.

So enough with who said what, the work of this group needs to proceed
forward and this interlude is taking way too many cycles. The next
question this group has to ask itself, is whether it wishes to file an
interim status report to the Board, not because it is asked to do so but
because it might wish to do that in time for the next Board meeting. If
so, it needs tell the GNSO & ALAC ASAP. Both chartering SO & AC will
then have the choice to convey such a message or not.

I hope this clears any ambiguities and look forward to seeing progress
in the work this cross-constituency working group is chartered to do.
You collectively have the responsibility of making proposals which have
the potential to help needy applicants and small communities worldwide.
Please don't fail them.

Kind regards,

Olivier
(personal viewpoints)

On 13/04/2011 13:40, Avri Doria wrote :
> 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
>> <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
>> *Date: *13 April 2011 13:19:31 GMT+02:00
>> *To: *"'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:%27council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>'"
>> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:ocl@xxxxxxx>>;
>> ALAC EXCOM <alac-excom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:alac-excom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; Rafik Dammak
>> <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
>>> 28^th 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
>>> <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>   */* www.neustar.biz
>>> <http://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.
>>>  
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html