[council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report

Tue May 17 18:33:31 UTC 2011

Dear friends,

I'm not jealous who and why sent a message from ALAC to the Board.  Why should I spend my time digging into this?

I care it's 17th of May 2011 and in June ICANN will launch a massive ad campaign about new gTLD. Guys @ communities from different geographical regions who can't afford to pay upfront a lot of US Dollars (why it's not рубли or人民币?) will go to GAC (some will go to ITU directly) with very reasonable question: what about us? I bet JAS will be adopted, it's part of the ICANN strategy to be on the bright side of the force. 

I see VI déjà vu happening right now. And really would like Councilors and gNSO stakeholders to take it as granted and try to adopt it while the window still open until the next JAS milestone report which might be the final call. 

yours,

--andrei

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 9:16 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis; GNSO Council
Subject: RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report

During my tenure on the ALAC, we generally voted on issues such as formal ALAC statements, approval of the creation of WGs or charters. And of course all issues that clearly required "formal" action under our rules or ICANN Bylaws - elections, changes to our rules of procedure, approval of ALSs and such. 

For more operational issues, we tend to work by consensus and only revert to a formal vote if there is an objection raised. In our earlier days, there was some mistrust of the Executive Committee, but that is generally not an issue now and the ALAC will often delegate operational issues to the ExCom.

I would have to go back and check transcripts to be sure, but my recollection is that the decision on the detail of how to handle the JAS report was delegated to the ExCom, as the timing was far too tight to convene an ALAC meeting or schedule a formal vote. And to be candid, we did not imagine that it would end up being controversial. There certainly was discussion and agreement on the need to get the report to the Board in time to meet their publication deadline for their retreat, recognizing that there would still be time for us to submit a brief statement prior to their actually discussing it (still a wild guess if they will nor not, since no agenda has yet been published).

Alan

At 17/05/2011 12:42 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:

Alan,

Thanks for that.

Quick question; does the ALAC vote on this sort of stuff or just â€œdecide and goâ€?

Thanks.

Adrian Kinderis

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [ mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 7:54 AM
To: GNSO Council
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report

I will try to address Jeff's questions, but will in parallel pass my answers by the ALAC to ensure that I am not putting words into their collective mouths.

First, I read Mary's "the chartering process" to mean "the process laid out in their charter(s)".

On why At-Large staff forwarded the report to the Board, this was done at the request of the ALAC through its Chair and Executive Committee and was not an independent action of staff..

Regarding the appropriateness of one of the chartering organizations sending the report to the Board, the GNSO charter had the following sentence which the ALAC copied verbatim: "4. All communication to the ICANN Board regarding the work of this Working Group shall be through the respective SO/AC unless expressly approved by the respective SO/AC." There is nothing there that I construe to meaning that the chartering organizations must work in tandem.

Alan

At 17/05/2011 09:02 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

I also would like to see the statement about the "scrupulous observance of the chartering process" removed. We still need to find out why the at-large icann staff sent the report to the board on May 9th as is indicated in Olivier's note. I am also not convinced that one organization sending the report to the board without the approval of the other organization is in line with the chartering process, but we can discuss that further. 
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Vice President, Law & Policy 
NeuStar, Inc. 
Jeff.Neuman at neustar.biz 

From: tim at godaddy.com [ mailto:tim at godaddy.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 08:12 AM
To: StÃƒÂ©phane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>; owner-council at gnso.icann.org <owner-council at gnso.icann.org>; Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report 

No objection if you remove the last sentence. There is no chartering process for CWGs. The ALAC and GNSO could not even agree on what the charter should be. And at least a few of us have concerns about how and why CWGs are being formed.Tim
From: StÃƒÂ©phane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com> 
Sender: owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:45:21 +0200
To: Council GNSO<council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Councillors,

Please find below the NCSG's suggestion on a message which I could send to the Chairman of the Board in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO.

Thanks Mary for providing this draft.

Please let me have your comments.

StÃƒÂ©phane

Le 14 mai 2011 Ãƒ  16:31, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> a ÃƒÂ©crit :

Hi - sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the Council letter; there has been some lively discussion among some NCSG folks about it.

We suggest the following draft:

Dear Peter,

We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible. 
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review. 

I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.

Best regards,
Stephane van Gelder
Cheers
Mary

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> 
From: StÃƒÂ©phane Van Gelder< stephane.vangelder at indom.com <mailto:stephane.vangelder at indom.com> >
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org >
Date: 5/14/2011 5:18 AM
Subject: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Thanks Olivier. 

GNSO Council, FYI.

A good weekend to all.

StÃƒÂ©phane

Le 14 mai 2011 Ãƒ  11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a ÃƒÂ©crit :

please find enclosed, a copy of our follow-up message to the Board including ALAC comments.
Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any query about its contents.
Have a good week-end!
Kind regards,

Olivier

-------- Message original -------- 
Sujet: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Date : Fri, 13 May 2011 20:26:34 -0700
De : ICANN At-Large Staff  <mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org> <staff at atlarge.icann.org>
Pour : Secretary  <mailto:secretary at icann.org> <secretary at icann.org>
Copie Ãƒ  : ocl at gih.com  <mailto:ocl at gih.com> <ocl at gih.com>, carlton.samuels at gmail.com  <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com> <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>, rafik.dammak at gmail.com  <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> , ICANN At-Large Staff  <mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org> <staff at atlarge.icann.org>

Dear all,  
The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC): 

*	The Second Milestone Report of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG), with a revised ALAC introduction (entitled Ã¢€œStatus of this s DocumentÃ¢€Â); and 
*	The Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report.  

We request that these documents (attached here) be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Board.   
The Second Milestone Report was received by the ALAC and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 7 May 2011.  Then, the At-Large staff, on behalf of the ALAC, initially forwarded this Report to the Board on 9 May 2011.  Please note that the Report itself has not been substantively changed since the Board initially received it on 9 May.
During the period 7–133 May, comments on the Report were collected from the At-Large Community.  These comments are the basis for the Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report attached here.
The ALAC ratification process for the Second Milestone Report and the ALAC Statement will begin on 14 May, and the results will be forwarded to the Board.

Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted independently and has not reached the approval stage. 

Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and Marilyn Vernon
ICANN At-Large Staff

email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org
website: www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>  

<jas-milestone2-report-7may11-en-alac-revision.pdf><AL-ALAC-ST-0511-2 ALAC Statement on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report - EN.pdf>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110517/7d800600/attachment.html>