[council] Fwd: Recommendations from the ALAC to the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group Chairs
Stéphane Van Gelder
stephane.vangelder at indom.com
Fri Apr 29 09:57:26 UTC 2011
With Olivier's permission, please see email below from ALAC to JAS co-chairs.
Début du message réexpédié :
> De : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> Date : 29 avril 2011 10:40:12 HAEC
> À : Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Cc : ALAC EXCOM <alac-excom at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>, ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org>, Karla Valente <karla.valente at icann.org>
> Objet : Recommendations from the ALAC to the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group Chairs
> Dear JAS WG Co-Chairs,
> As one of the two chartering AC/SOs of the JAS WG, the ALAC would like to offer certain recommendations for your consideration, in order to boost the WG’s efforts efficiently forward at this point. It is the ALAC’s hope that these recommendations will be taken in the spirit in which they are intended – as guidance rooted in the shared goal of having the JAS WG fulfil its mandate within the agreed timetable.
> The ALAC recommends that the JAS WG – starting with its conference call on Friday, 29 April – thoroughly review the “JAS Issues and Recommendations” summary document (located at https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations), created by the JAS Drafting Team. This document, once complete, will define and summarize the JAS WG’s consensus on a select number of important high-level issues, particularly:
> Part 3: the required criteria of applicants qualifying for support (i.e. who can qualify), bringing the element of formulation of these criteria from Part 5 into this part; and
> To a lesser extent, Part 4: what these applicants can expect to get.
> These issues are covered by the parts on which the ALAC recommends the WG most strongly focus. As per the WG's Charter, substantive outcome is sought particularly in these issues.
> The goal of this review would be to facilitate the JAS WG’s discussion – and resolution – of those aspects of this document that are still incomplete or for which there is still no clear WG consensus.
> Please note that many of these unresolved issues are currently marked in red within the document. We believe that the needed agreement on this small number of high-level issues can be reached without the WG’s also having to agree, at this time, on the many underlying details it has been discussing.
> Specifically, the ALAC recommends that the JAS WG go about the review of this document – and reaching agreement on the issues it covers – in the following way:
> This document review could be efficiently moderated by the JAS WG pen holder, Evan Leibovitch.
> The document should be displayed in the meeting’s Adobe Connect Room so that all members are, quite literally, on the same page.
> The changes on which the JAS WG agrees should be made to the document during the discussion itself – that is, "in real time" during the WG’s meeting.
> It is the ALAC’s hope that the JAS WG, by focusing its work in this way immediately (as of its 29 April meeting), will be able to successfully reach a consensus on a number of fundamental issues in the few meetings it still has before the 6 May deadline for reporting on the time critical key issues and its charters from GNSO and ALAC to be completed.
> I and other members of the ALAC Executive Committee would welcome the opportunity to discuss these suggestions with you further.
> Kind regards,
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
> ALAC Chair
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council