[council] JAS

[Alan Greenberg]

At this stage, I do not believe that there is 
anyone on the WG who is not interested in working 
on the "additional" items, so having the ALAC 
"take them back" really means that the same WG 
participants will work on them, but with a WG 
name that is different and we will need to schedule different meetings.

So why not just allow the single WG to work on 
the union of the two charters and report back, 
either with the recommendations flagged with 
respect to which AC/SO it is targeted at, or more 
awkwardly, produce two reports. Same net result with no artificial barriers.

I am no longer on the ALAC and cannot speak on 
the ALAC's behalf, but I believe that this has 
good support in the ALAC. I am copying Olivier on this note.

Alan

At 21/01/2011 07:06 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

>Councillors,
>
>Bruce and I have been discussing the JAS 
>situation off list and he has a suggestion on 
>another possible way forward we might consider. 
>I would like to make it clear this is being 
>presented in both Bruce and myself's personal 
>capacity. This is just us brainstorming the 
>issue, not suggesting ways forward as Board member and GNSO Chair.
>
>One thing the GNSO could look at is asking the 
>JAS WG to work on topics of mutual interest or 
>common ground as defined in the GNSO motion. 
>ALAC could take items that are in addition back 
>for their own internal discussion. They could 
>then look at providing advice to the Board directly.
>
>As far as we are concerned, even though this is 
>a CWG, it is still up to us as the GNSO to 
>endorse those items we agree with and formally 
>provide our recommendation to the Board.
>
>Also, to avoid confusion between use of the term 
>working group within the GNSO procedures, maybe 
>the joint SO/AC groups could be called "discussion forums".
>
>Thanks,
>
>Stéphane