[council] Proposed Amendments to JAS motion

[Rafik Dammak]

Hello Jeff,

thank you for offering some amendments, please find my answers below:

2011/6/7 Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>

> All,
>
>
>
> I have given this motion a good deal of thought and am still waiting
> feedback from my stakeholder group.  Given the attention that the JAS
> working group has gotten from the GAC and Board and the desire of all of us
> to ensure that all economies have access to the new round of gTLDs, a number
> of people and groups have been afraid politically to state anything that
> could in any way be perceived by anyone as being negative towards the work
> that is underway.  Although the work has been tremendous to date especially
> given the tight timing, and the cause is certainly a worthy one, I do
> believe that we cannot compromise our processes and set bad precedent simply
> because we afraid of how we may be perceived politically by those that are
> not following everything going on at the GNSO.
>
>
> Therefore, I wanted to draft an e-mail explaining the issues I have
> personally with the motion and suggest some amendments that may alleviate
> some of the issues for me.   The motion, as it currently stands now, is
> based on a milestone report and therefore is not by definition final.  The
> report contains some good principles and ideas that need to be flushed out
> more (as the report admits).  The motion asks the GNSO to do a few things:
>
> 1.        Putting the report out for public comment
>
> 2.       Forwarding the report to the Board for review and approval
>
> 3.       Having ICANN staff begin implementation
>
> 4.       Having the JAS WG deal with issues that arise in community review
>
> 5.       Having the JAS Group publish the final report after the review
> process
>
>
>
> Numbers 1, 4 and 5 certainly make a lot of sense to me and are in line with
> what normally happens with policy groups.  However, I have issues with 2 and
> 3.  I do not understand the notion of forwarding a non-final report to the
> board for approval.
>

acknowledging that, what do you think of this proposal and rewording?:

"The GNSO Council  forwards the  second JAS Milestone Report  to the ICANN
board for informational purposes to  allow for evaluation of the progress of
JAS WG and its relevance to discussion with the GAC"

we are not requesting approving for the MR2, and the GNSO will vote later to
approve the final report, does it make sense for you?

 Nor do I understand the notion of having staff begin implementation of a
> non-final report prior to GNSO approval of the final recommendations much
> less Board approval of the final recommendations.
>

in order to avoid delay in implementation and understanding your concern, I
suggest this rewording:
"The GNSO Council request ICANN staff begin* investigating* on
implementation of the recommendation pending Board approval, and "

the idea is to ask ICANN staff to investigate the recommendation
for feasibility and study them, it is not implementation per se and it is
aimed to avoid delays.

Therefore, I would propose that the following amendments be made to the
> resolved clauses so it now reads:
>
>
>
> Resolved:
>
> The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for
> its efforts and its dedication to completing the work on such a tight
> schedule, and
>
> The GNSO Council request that the report be put out for community review as
> soon as possible, and
>
> The JAS Working Group continues working to deal with any issues that may
> arise in the upcoming review by the community, and
>
> That the JAS Working group publish their final report after this review
> process.
>
> Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to
> communicate its decision to the ALAC Chair.
>
>
>
> I know I run the risk of being criticized on the Council list and the JAS
> WG list as being obstructionist or not caring about the needs of the
> developing communities.  I have also seen on the JAS WG list that incumbents
> are trying to keep out competition or that we are trying to delay the
> process.
>

I want to make clear that you are mentioning personal opinions of some
members who may feel frustrated, but definitely it is not a WG position,

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110608/32efa132/attachment.html>