[council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...

Mon Oct 4 05:53:53 UTC 2010

Hi Chuck,

I confirm that there was discussion in the JAS WG on that matter and request
as mentioned by Cheryl .

regards

Rafik
2010/9/30 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>

>  Please note the following email from Cheryl Langdon-Orr, ALAC Chair, that
> was sent to me along with Heather Dryden and Frank March of the GAC.  Noting
> that the references to the GNSO Council meeting should be corrected to 7
> October (not 8 October as stated in Cheryl’s message), under agenda ‘Item
> 7: New gTLD Board Resolutions from Board Retreat’ I would like to request
> direction from the GNSO Council regarding how I should respond.  In
> particular, please note the following excerpts from Cheryl’s message:
>
>
>
> “My proposal to GNSO and GAC is that with the knowledge of how our AC is
> planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the matters we wish to
> address,  would GNSO and/or GAC  like to collaborate and proceed  in these
> inquiries and analysis as a joint activity?  It is our belief
> that particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering
> Organisations or in Cross Community mode this would be
> quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC  do wish to do so the ALAC and I
> look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and more robust
> models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built policy
> processes in ICANN.”
>
>
>
> “. . . ALAC will be writing to the Board and Senior staff involved, to
> requesting some information and materials that we trust will help us (as
> well as the WG participants and wider ICANN Community) the rational to the
> resolutions of the Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as some
> information as to depth and time taken in deliberation of the
> recommendations  from the community (specifically the Consensus ones, but
> also those with Strong Support) by the Board and for any information and/or
> explanation we can be given to assist our understanding in the decisions
> outlined in those resolutions, we will also be requesting access to
> and prompt delivery of the Board briefing materials and staff briefings on
> these substantial reports,  (the Board Books) under the previously announced
> intentions and guidelines for these publications, (since Brussels)  noting
> that  at this stage the community has not had access to the Aug meetings
> materials  and if a similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we
> would still be requesting information, explanation and assistance towards
> our understanding as we go into the Catagena meeting.  We have also been
> requested to write to the ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the
> requests we make.”
>
>
>
> Please forward this request to your respective SGs and constituencies as
> soon as possible and be prepared to discuss this on 7 October.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Chuck
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:15 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca; Frank March
> *Cc:* alac-excom at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> *Subject:* Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the
> recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various
> WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...
>
>
>
> As discussed  in our brief chat yesterday,  the ALAC  at its meeting on the
> 28th  discussed  several matters and concerns to our community  and the
> At-Large participants in several of the recent WG activities (particularly
> the WG focussed on VI, JAS and Rec6CWG) arising out of the resolutions
> published recently from the Board Retreat at Trondheim, Norway see
> http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> The ALAC meeting was joined by Regional (RALO) leadership, At-Large
> Liaisons to ICANN SO's and other AC's and participants to
> the aforementioned  WG's  which as you know range from the 'traditional SO /
> GNSO Chartered WG (VI)  through the Joint Chartering Organisation of JAS-WG
> between GNSO and ALAC to the tripartite or multi SOAC Cross Community WG
> for Rec6 that was jointly managed under Terms of Reference from GNSO, GAC
> and ALAC;  the ALAC had formally appointed  a Liaison from us as a joint CO
> to both the JAS and Rec6CWG (operating under role definitions and mechanisms
> from the current near final draft  GNSO WG guidelines Section 2.2 page 11
> of  <http://goog_673367091/>  GNSO Working Group Guidelines - clean -
> updated 20 May 2010.doc<https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fst.icann.org%2Fdata%2Fworkspaces%2Ficann-ppsc%2Fattachments%2Fworking_group_team%3A20100520152255-0-26262%2Foriginal%2FGNSO%252520Working%252520Group%252520Guidelines%252520-%252520clean%252520-%252520updated%25252020%252520May%2525202010.doc> )
> and both these Liaisons addressed  serious concerns raised by their
> respective WG's since the Board resolutions have been published and the ALAC
> agreed that* "Cheryl and ExCom to follow up on possibility of executive of
> two chartering organizations (GNSO and ALAC) speaking to Chuck about
> concerns re Board's reaction to JAS WG. Similar concerns regarding the
> response to the report from the Rec6CWG, will be raised by Cheryl in a
> teleconference between the CO's and Co-Chairs of that WG and again follow
> through on this will be actioned either by the ALAC  or in any joint
> reaction from GNSO, GAC and ALAC that  might occur  (this will be followed
> though on either jointly with other issues or separately)."* from AI's
> from ALAC meeting of 28 Sept.
> https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?action_items_28_september_2010_en
>
>
>
> I am writing to you with this information and the following proposal so
> that the GAC and GNSO can consider  what next steps they might wish to take
> jointly or severally with that which the ALAC intends to do.  As I also
> mentioned in our call the GNSO Liaison to the Joint JAS-WG is expected to
> bring this matter forward at the GNSO meeting of the 8th of October and
> knowledge of ALAC deliberations and AI's on this matter may be of some
> interest or use to the GNSO Councils deliberations on this JAS specific
> matter as well as whatever might be raised  regarding Rec6CWG.
>
>
>
> On behalf of the At-Large Community involved and/or interested in these WG
> activities conducted since Nairobi and  deadlined to feed into the Board
> Retreat  where they were considering the new
> gTLD program Application Guidelines etc.,  ALAC will be writing to the Board
> and Senior staff involved, to requesting some information and materials that
> we trust will help us (as well as the WG participants and wider ICANN
> Community) the rational to the resolutions of the Board regarding the
> Reports provided, as well as some information as to depth and time taken in
> deliberation of the recommendations  from the community (specifically the
> Consensus ones, but also those with Strong Support) by the Board and for any
> information and/or explanation we can be given to assist our understanding
> in the decisions outlined in those resolutions, we will also be requesting
> access to and prompt delivery of the Board briefing materials and staff
> briefings on these substantial reports,  (the Board Books) under the
> previously announced intentions and guidelines for these publications,
> (since Brussels)  noting that  at this stage the community has not had
> access to the Aug meetings materials  and if a similar delay was seen with
> this retreat / meeting we would still be requesting information, explanation
> and assistance towards our understanding as we go into the Catagena meeting.
>  We have also been requested to write to the ATRT with these concerns and
> with copy of the requests we make.
>
>
>
> There is concern in our community that the briefings and staff advice given
> to the Board may not have done justice to the degree of information  and the
> specifics of the various recommendations in these reports,  nor
> that sufficient time or debate was allocated to them and we will be seeking
> assurances and information to disprove or otherwise these fears.
>
>
>
> My proposal to GNSO and GAC  is that with the knowledge of how our AC is
> planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the matters we wish to
> address,  would GNSO and/or GAC  like to collaborate and proceed  in these
> inquiries and analysis as a joint activity?  It is our belief
> that particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering
> Organisations  or in Cross Community mode this would be
> quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC  do wish to do so the ALAC and I
> look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and more robust
> models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built policy
> processes in ICANN.
>
>
>
> Chuck I trust this missive is timely enough for it to be of some use to the
> GNSO Council meeting on the 8th and Heather recognizing that the GAC does
> not have an intersession model that matches the frequency of ALAC and GNSO
> Council meeting do let me know if there is anything I can do to assist any
> discussion and deliberations your AC is making on these matters and note
> also that as ALAC works with all of At-Large and at-large, we would value
> any individual or  partial/subset interactions and interventions from your
> Members  and Constituencies, if you as SO and AC are unable to join us in
> cross community collaboration on this...
>
>
>
> I look forward to your Council and AC reactions to this proposals and
> towards ALAC and A-Large working with you in any way deemed most suitable
> and effective on this issue in the near future.  Please note that  by our
> mid month ExCom meeting (held in the week of Oct 11 TBC)  where we next
> review our AI's I would like to have your feedback, guidance and suggestions
> on how you wish to proceed. Naturally as leadership and key representation
> in the ICANN Community we can I believe work
> more effectively and successfully in concert and collaboration  rather than
> by divided effort on this and many other matters, and I hope your structures
> might see it that was as well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kindest regards,
>
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
>
> Chair of ALAC 2007- 2010
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20101004/95afff6b/attachment.html>