[council] Proposed Amendments to JAS motion

Wed Jun 8 04:36:30 UTC 2011

Hi Jeff,

The proposals looks fine and can be accepted,as friendly amendments.
Thanks,

Best,

Rafik
On Jun 8, 2011 10:16 AM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us> wrote:
> Rafik,
>
> I think we are getting closer. I took your concepts and how would this
work?
>
> 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 requests that the report be put out for community review
as soon as possible, and
> The GNSO Council forwards the second JAS Milestone Report to the ICANN
board for informational purposes to demonstrate the progress made by the JAS
WG so that it may refer to that progress in their discussions with the GAC,
> The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff begin assessing whether the
recommendations are implementable, 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.
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> Please note new address: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166
>
> ________________________________
> 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.
>
>
> From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 12:22 PM
> To: Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Amendments to JAS motion
>
> Hello Jeff,
>
> thank you for offering some amendments, please find my answers below:
> 2011/6/7 Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us<mailto:
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/f26175a7/attachment.html>