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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon May 23 15:49:55 UTC 2011


If "the ICANN staff that supports the ALAC 
submitted it directly to the Board at the same 
time it was forwarded to the GNSO", it is 
problematic. And I am sure that the ALAC would agree.

What is the origin of this claim or the evidence of this happening?


At 23/05/2011 08:03 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>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/cb303657/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list