[council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report

Neuman, Jeff Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us
Mon May 23 12:03:38 UTC 2011

I really do not understand why we would have the statement recommended by Bill. That has never been the issue with the other Councilors on this list.   Perhaps there was a post or two on blogs elsewhere, but that was not the concern expressed by Councilors and I do not see why we should be addressing that point.

The issue for me (and some other councilors on this list) has been that the ICANN staff that supports the ALAC submitted it directly to the Board at the same time it was forwarded to the GNSO, and the ALAC formally forwarded to the board for its consideration prior to the GNSO having a chance to review it (much less approve it).  As we have seen, this report is already being considered by the Board and the GAC giving the appearance that the GNSO's input into the matter is irrelevant.    So the whole concern expressed by Councilors in January with the new charter about not communicating directly with the Board with the GNSO Council's input was completely circumvented by the ALAC because that was not in their version of the Charter.  Granted we cannot control what is another SO's charter, but we can make sure in the future that we do not approve any CWGs where that CWG has a provision that is inconsistent with ours.

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: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 7:43 AM
To: William Drake
Cc: GNSO Council
Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report

Thanks Bill.

The message would then become:

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. A motion to do this was proposed at our May 19 teleconference and tabled until our next meeting, on June 9.

I will therefore look to get back to you after this meeting to provide you with an update on the GNSO Council's decision re the JAS report.

In light of false information that has been circulated on the matter, the GNSO Council would also like to confirm that the JAS WG simultaneously submitted its Report 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
GNSO Council Chair

If anyone disagrees with the content of the message as stated, please say so by COB tonight so that I can send the message tomorrow as planned.


Le 23 mai 2011 à 13:16, William Drake a écrit :

Hi Stéphane

On May 23, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

Discussions by them of a "way forward" on a report that hasn't yet been approved by us may just be thinking ahead, or it may be that they have not cottoned on to the fact that the report hasn't yet been approved...

I suspect they do understand what is plainly obvious but believe consideration of a "way forward" is necessary nonetheless.  Which would be a sound conclusion, given the serious need to broaden both international participation in gTLDs and political support for ICANN.

With regard to your letter, may I suggest a small and incontrovertibly factual amendment that would be entirely in keeping with your purely informational objective here?  How's about adding the following:  "In light of false information that has been circulated on the matter, the GNSO Council would also like to confirm that the JAS WG simultaneously submitted its Report to ALAC and the GNSO for review."  This is should eliminate the NC opposition to a letter (haven't asked, but believe so).


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110523/ef16a8bd/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list