[council] Re: Reminder / Tuesday 14 June 2011 @ 1300 UTC / JAS WG - Board - GAC proposed June 7 meeting
Katim S. Touray
kstouray at gmail.com
Thu Jun 16 16:22:53 UTC 2011
Hi Stéphane,
Thanks for your e-mail responding to mine on the matter of the JAS WG
conference call earlier this week. I'm sorry I didn't reply earlier than
now because I was traveling to Singapore, and only got here about three
hours ago.
I sorry to hear you found my e-mail upsetting. As I understand your e-mail,
it seems you were (and maybe still is) upset that I:
1. showed a lack of understanding of the basic process your SO is
committed to following, namely, its own, and ICANN's bylaws
2. as a board member, and regardless of my "personal interests," should
"respect [ICANN's] SOs and ... uphold the processes under which they work"
3. implied in my e-mail that the GNSO is trying to scuttle the process of
seeking ways to help needy new gTLD applicants
I'm afraid there are serious differences between how you read my e-mail, and
what I meant to say. In the first place, I do not see how my saying that
the GNSO was slow in responding to the JAS Milestone Report could be amount
to my lack of understanding of the basic process the GNSO is following. My
statement only mentioned the delay, and not any possible reason(s) for it.
While you are perfectly free to argue that the delay was caused by following
due process, this would alter not the validity of my statement that the
delay might be seen in bad light by people from developing countries. I
would suggest that it probably would have been more constructive to seek
ways and means of reaching out to the development countries community to
explain the reasons for the delay (if you haven't indeed done that), than to
get outraged about what I said.
I also wonder why what I said should suggest to you that I have not
respected or do not respect ICANN's SOs, and do not uphold the processes of
their work. I only said what I said because, as we say in my language
(rough translation): "it's your brother (or sister) who can tell you you
have bad breath." In that sense, my saying what I said was very much in
keeping with my duties as a board member, and indeed the duty of us all,
that we say what we think is in the best interest of the organization and
the community at large, even when it is an unpalatable truth.
As to your reference to my "personal interests," I only hope you mean and
stop at the fact that I am from an African developing country, and not that
I have any personal interest in an entity that my benefit from an
implementation of the support program in the future. And let me add that I
am happy to put in my efforts in the matter because I sincerely believe it
will be a program that, if done right, will benefit not only the developing
countries, but ICANN, and the global Internet community at large. This is
not about running a charity program for poor people, but a program that will
help ICANN build the credibility that it so badly needs in the eyes and
minds of many of its stakeholders from developing countries. And lest we
forget, that credibility is going to be much needed by ICANN if it is to
evolve into a respectable and relevant global organization.
You also mentioned that I implied in my e-mail that the GNSO is trying to
scuttle the process of finding ways and means of providing support to needy
new gTLD applicants. I suggest you re-read my e-mail to convince you that
what I said is far from what you claimed I said. I only said that the
slowness of the GNSO might be "well be construed by many as an effort by the
GNSO to scuttle the entire process ..." This only suggests how people might
see what the GNSO is doing, and not that the SO is indeed intent on
scuttling the process. I hope my point is clear to you now.
Finally, you mention that my e-mail was a breach of the process of the Board
working through SOs and ACs. Again, I disagree with you because I suggest
nowhere in my e-mail that anyone violate any bylaws. Furthermore, I see it
as my duty and indeed right, like everyone else has, to speak up and out
when I feel the system is not working as it should, and I have ideas about
how to fix things. So please do not take what I said as an attempt to
"hijack" (as you say) the core processes we have in place, but as my effort
to ensure that the process actually works. I hope you understand.
Again, thanks for your e-mail and best wishes for safe travels to
Singapore. And by the way, please let me know if you want to discuss this
in person. I'll be more than happy to clear up any other issues you'd want
me to.
Sincerely,
Katim
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder <
stephane.vangelder at indom.com> wrote:
> Hello Katim,
>
> This is a personal reaction to your message.
>
> I am, frankly, aghast that a Board member would send a message indicating
> that one of ICANN's SOs has been "slow" in acting on a report, in the way
> you portray the GNSO as having acted with regards to the JAS Milestone
> Report.
>
> At best, this shows a lack of understanding of the basic process that our
> SO is committed to following, by its own bylaws and by the ICANN bylaws.
> Immediately after the JAS had forwarded its report to us, it was considered
> by the GNSO Council at its next meeting. During that meeting, one of the
> GNSO groups requested the motion be deferred for one meeting. We have a
> long-standing custom of entertaining such requests. Hence the GNSO
> considered the motion again at its June 9 meeting, where I am happy to say
> that the motion (requesting, among other things, that the report be put out
> for public comment asap) was approved unanimously by the Council.
>
> Regardless of your personal interests, I would think that one of your
> duties as a Board member is to uphold the organisation's bylaws, to respect
> its SOs and to uphold the processes under which they work.
>
> Implying in your message that the GNSO is attempting to scuttle the "entire
> process of seeking ways... to provide support to needy new gTLD applicants"
> is not only untrue (as our unanimous vote shows), it is also a serious
> disregard of the way ICANN and its SOs work. ICANN's bottom-up process is
> not "pick and choose". Just because, on this issue that you care strongly
> about, you feel that things are not moving fast enough, this does not
> justify false allegations of possible attempts by one SO to "scuttle the
> process".
>
> As your message was sent in the context of a call with the Board, the GAC,
> Staff and ALAC, I consider it very public. Hence it could also be construed
> as an attempt to discredit the hard work being done by the community of
> volunteers that the GNSO represents.
>
> You request suggestions to the Board "to ensure that progress cannot be
> hijacked by inaction by any party" (and this is clearly aimed at the GNSO in
> this case). I would offer one: don't hijack ICANN's core process of working
> through its SOs and ACs towards the Board! I take your message to be a
> breach of that process and would personally appreciate reassurance from you
> that I am mistaken, and that is not what you intend.
>
> In order to initiate possible discussion on this at both Council and Board
> level, I am copying the GNSO Council, Peter as Chairman of the Board and the
> two GNSO-elected Board members for their possible comments.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stéphane
>
>
>
> Le 14 juin 2011 à 01:33, Katim S. Touray a écrit :
>
> Dear all,
>
> Thanks so much for your invitation to the call. I certainly was looking
> forward to joining you on the call, but unfortunately, I have a serious
> conflict that only came up earlier today (Mon.) I am a consultant helping
> prepare a strategic action plan for our Fisheries Department in The Gambia,
> and we were in a workshop all day today discussing a draft plan I presented
> a few weeks back. We were hoping to go through the entire document today,
> but we could not. So we agreed to meet again tomorrow to complete our
> review of the draft document. For this reason, I will not be available to
> join the call tomorrow, and I am most disappointed by this.
>
> Having said that, I hope you have a successful meeting tomorrow. In
> addition, I would like to say that I hope your recommendations receive the
> proper attention they deserve, and that in the end, needy new gTLD
> applicants get the support they need.
>
> One issue I would like you to discuss on the call is the timeline for the
> finalization of the JAS WG report. While I agree that it will help to
> insist that the AG mention that needy applicants should seek support through
> the process based the JAS WG report, I think it will help to provide a
> timeline for the finalization of your report.
>
> I'm also troubled by the fact that the GNSO has been rather slow in acting
> on the JAS WG reports. I fear such a situation might well be construed by
> many as an effort by the GNSO to scuttle the entire process of seeking ways
> and means to provide support to needy new gTLD applicants. One important
> product of such a perception would be that developing countries will feel
> that ICANN is not sincere when it says (as the Board did in Nairobi last
> year) that it is interested in launching an inclusive new gTLD program. I
> need not say that such a perception will also harm ICANN's efforts to
> strengthen relations with developing countries, and get them on our side on
> the many issues we'd like to have their support. For this reason, I would
> like hear what suggestions you have to the board to ensure that progress
> cannot be hijacked by inaction by any party.
>
> Finally, let me say a big "Thank you!!" again to all of you for your
> tireless and selfless efforts on this matter. Again, I am very sorry I
> would not be able to join your call, and best wishes in your deliberations.
>
> Have a great week, and safe travels to Singapore!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Katim
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM, ICANN At-Large Staff <
> staff at atlarge.icann.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> *The JAS Working Group Call with members of the Board, GAC and GNSO
>> invited*, is scheduled on *Tuesday, 14 June 2001, at 13:00 UTC*. We hope
>> you will be able to join us.
>>
>> *PROPOSED AGENDA:*
>>
>> - *Introduction* (5 to 10 minutes) Evan Leibovitch - Highlights
>> Second Milestone Report covering short history how it was developed and
>> specific summary points
>>
>>
>> - *Board/GAC questions/comments* (30 to 40 minutes) – JAS WG would
>> like to listen to individual feedback and receive questions/suggestions from
>> GAC and Board members
>>
>>
>> - *Singapore *(5 to 10 minutes) Rafik Dammak/Carlton Samuels – Should
>> there be a public meeting with the JAS WG GAC/Board members during the
>> Singapore ICANN Meeting?
>>
>> As a reminder, it would help the JAS WG to better prepare if you could:
>>
>> 1. Advise on the representatives from the Board and GAC that will be
>> able to attend the teleconference.
>> 2. Send us any questions or comments on the Milestone Report in
>> advance, if possible.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
>> ALAC Chair
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Dial-in details: Tuesday 14 June 2011 at 13:00 UTC*
>>
>> For other places see:
>>
>> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=JAS+WG&iso=20110607T13
>>
>>
>>
>> *ADOBE CONNECT:**
>> **http://icann.adobeconnect.com/jas/*
>> *Wiki Workspace:*
>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/SO-AC+New+gTLD+Applicant+Support+Working+Group+%28JAS-WG%29
>>
>> *If you require a dial-out, please email staff at atlarge.icann.org with
>> you preferred contact number.*
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________________________
>> Participant passcode: *JAS**
>> *
>> For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________________________
>> Dial in numbers:
>> Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll
>> Free Number
>>
>> ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519
>> AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260
>> AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260
>> AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260
>> AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260
>> AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260
>> AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260
>> AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259
>> BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795
>> BRAZIL 0800-7610651
>> CHILE 1230-020-2863
>> CHINA* 86-400-810-4789
>> 10800-712-1670
>> 10800-120-1670
>> COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474
>> CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177
>> DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324
>> ESTONIA 800-011-1093
>> FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610
>> FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610
>> FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496
>> FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496
>> FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496
>> GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247
>> GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312
>> HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856
>> HUNGARY 06-800-12755
>> INDIA
>> 000-800-852-1268
>> INDONESIA
>> 001-803-011-3982
>> IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368
>> ISRAEL 1-80-9216162
>> ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383
>> JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439
>> JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439
>> LATVIA 8000-3185
>> LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364
>> MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065
>> MEXICO
>> 001-866-376-9696
>> NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378
>> NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722
>> NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157
>> PANAMA
>> 011-001-800-5072065
>> PERU 0800-53713
>> PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716
>> POLAND 00-800-1212572
>> PORTUGAL 8008-14052
>> RUSSIA
>> 8-10-8002-0144011
>> SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663
>> SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25
>> SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414
>> SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083
>> 00798-14800-7352
>> SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053
>> SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622
>> SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032
>> TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797
>> THAILAND
>> 001-800-1206-66056
>> UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029
>> UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029
>> UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029
>> UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029
>> UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029
>> URUGUAY
>> 000-413-598-3421
>> USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726
>> VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702
>>
>>
>> *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed,
>> dependent on the participants' local telecom provider.
>>
>>
>> Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a
>> mobile telephone.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110617/7909b1c6/attachment.html>
More information about the council
mailing list