Re: [council] JAS

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks to all of you for the usual discussion. I would encourage you to 
continue it. Our next agenda has an item on JAS on it. We will have to try and 
decide on a way forward. Any discussion prior to the meeting that can help do 
that is useful.

Stéphane

Le 19 janv. 2011 à 22:25, carlos dionisio aguirre a écrit :

> I particularly believe: 
> 
> On a cross community Wg we have two chartering organizations, with equal 
> capacities and possibilities to see, and to have opinion about the same 
> object under discussion.
> 
> When the consensus is obtained,  all works well.
> 
> The problem arise when we have two different and irreconcilable positions.
> 
> What are the solution for this cases?. 
> 
> The absense of operating principles and procedures for this Cross Community 
> WG need to be solve for the future. JAS is a first example, but could be more 
> in the future.
> 
> We can´t to ask opinion of the ICANN legal councilor in each opportunity that 
> this cases happen, Or promote a second round of discussions after to be taken 
> resolution?. 
> 
> On the other side, we need to accept the possibility of differents points of 
> view. In fact inside our council the resolution was taken for the mayority, 
> not for unanimity.
> 
> my two cents
> Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
> 
> NCA GNSO Council - ICANN
> former ALAC member by LACRALO
> Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
> Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
> *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
> http://ar.ageiadensi.org 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > From: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
> > To: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > CC: ocl@xxxxxxx
> > Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:38:42 -0500
> > Subject: RE: [council] JAS
> > 
> > 
> > I do not believe option 2 will yield any real concrete results as like you 
> > say there is nothing in the bylaws that contemplates or discusses cross 
> > working groups. It would seem to me that a cross working group that 
> > operates under two separate charters ceases to be a cross working group and 
> > becomes two independent groups that may address some similar topics.
> > 
> > I view number 1 as the only viable option if the nature of the cross 
> > working group is to survive here. However, I am not so sure that having 2 
> > independent groups here is such a bad outcome. 
> > 
> > In my opinion, we cannot be bullied into accepting a charter 
> > proposed/adopted by another group when the charter approved by the other 
> > group addressing topics beyond the scope of the GNSO simply to keep the 
> > cross working group. That sets a really bad precedent.
> > 
> > Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> > Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:29 AM
> > To: GNSO Council
> > Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
> > Subject: [council] JAS
> > 
> > 
> > Councillors,
> > 
> > FYI, ALAC Chair Olivier Crépin Leblond has reached out to me to discuss the 
> > JAS situation.
> > 
> > Unofficially, because this has not been ratified by ALAC yet, it is looking 
> > unlikely that they will accept our modified charter.
> > 
> > Some within ALAC are calling for either the version of the charter that was 
> > approved by ALAC to be maintained, or for the JAS group to work under 2 
> > separate charters.
> > 
> > The second option seems surreal to me, and what I communicated to Olivier 
> > is that I see two ways forward:
> > 
> > 1. ALAC and the GNSO sit down together and manage to find common ground on 
> > a mutually acceptable charter. This does present some complexities for us 
> > though, as any changes to the charter that we approved during our last 
> > teleconference meeting would no doubt need a new motion.
> > 2. We both refer the problem to ICANN's general Counsel.
> > 
> > Because we are dealing with a cross community group and these do not really 
> > have any clearly defined status in ICANN at the moment, this problem is one 
> > that we may not feel confident to tackle alone, hence my second proposal.
> > 
> > I will keep the Council informed of any further development on this front. 
> > Also, please note that an update from ALAC on the JAS situation is included 
> > in the agenda I have drafter for our next meeting. The Council leaders are 
> > currently working on this draft, which will then be submitted to the 
> > Council, as usual.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Stéphane
> >