<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Thanks Jeff for forwarding this.<div><br></div><div>Olivier's email raises concerns as it would seem to confirm there is a lack of clarity in the way the JAS group has been functioning.</div><div><br></div><div>On a personal level, I am especially worried to read that a "staff member has relayed an unsubstantiated demand from the Board" and that as a result, a member of the group acting of his own accord has prepared a draft report.</div><div><br></div><div>The worries that some on this Council have expressed about the way joint groups work and the risk of seeing them step outside the bounds of the Bottom-up Policy Development Process are clearly real in this context.</div><div><br></div><div>Further to the email I have just sent, I would suggest that this situation does indeed warrant us sending a message to the JAS group to enquire about this situation.</div><div><br></div><div>Thoughts?</div><div><br><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div>Stéphane</div><div><br></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br><div><div>Le 13 avr. 2011 à 13:19, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff"><font style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">
Fyi, I received this from Olivier this morning and not sure he can publish to the Council list.<br><br>I will separately post a response.<br><br>Thanks.
<br>Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
<br>Vice President, Law & Policy
<br>NeuStar, Inc.
<br><a href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz">Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz</a>
<br>
<br></font><br> <br>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<font style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<b>From</b>: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com]
<br><b>Sent</b>: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 05:39 AM<br><b>To</b>: Neuman, Jeff
<br><b>Cc</b>: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com">ocl@gih.com</a>>; ALAC EXCOM <<a href="mailto:alac-excom@atlarge-lists.icann.org">alac-excom@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>>; <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a> <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>>; Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>>
<br><b>Subject</b>: Fwd: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [council] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations of its Charter
<br></font> <br></div>
Dear Jeff,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Warm regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier Crépin-Leblond<br>
(speaking in my personal capacity since I have not had the time to
consult the ALAC due to time pressures)<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">From: "Neuman, Jeff"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us"><Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us></a><br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">"council@gnso.icann.org"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"><council@gnso.icann.org></a><br>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:12:51 -0400<br>
Subject: [council] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations
of
its<br>
Charter<br>
<br>
All,<br>
<br>
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 <u>must </u>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.<br>
<br>
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:<br>
“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.<br>
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
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/Charter+as+approved+by+the+GNSO+Council">https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/Charter+as+approved+by+the+GNSO+Council</a>
. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre>“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
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg01378.html">
http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg01378.html</a>
. 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. </pre>
<br>
<br>
<pre> </pre>
<br>
<br>
<pre>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:</pre>
<br>
<br>
<pre> </pre>
<br>
<br>
<pre>“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
</pre>
<br>
<pre>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).
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg01381.html">
http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg01381.html</a>”</pre>
<br>
<br>
<pre> </pre>
<br>
I am requesting that this formally be added to our agenda for
April
28<sup>th</sup> 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.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
<b>Jeffrey J. Neuman <br>
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy</b><br>
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166<br>
<b>Office: </b>+1.571.434.5772 <b>Mobile: </b>+1.202.549.5079
<b>Fax: </b>+1.703.738.7965 <b>/</b>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz">jeff.neuman@neustar.biz</a>
<b>/</b>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.neustar.biz/" eudora="autourl">www.neustar.biz</a>
<br>
Please note new address starting March 21, 2011: 21575 Ridgetop
Circle, Sterling VA 20166 <br>
<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>