Re: [council] FW: ALAC Statement on GNSO WG Guidelines

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Are there any specific recommendations on how to improve the recommendations of 
the Working Group Work Team final report by the ALAC that should be considered 
by the Council. As you know, this process has been going on for so long now, we 
need to deal with specifics rather than position statements at this stage.

We can discuss more next week.

Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 11:33 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] FW: ALAC Statement on GNSO WG Guidelines

I *think* I understand the rationale behind the specific wording, but I will 
seek clarification to make sure that I am correct.

I believe that the ALAC is supporting the current process, and suggesting that 
the GNSO be even more pro-active, specifically with the ACs which do not 
routinely participate. The ALAC has been active in  such WG over the last 
several years, but the same cannot be said for the other ACs.  History 
indicates that public calls for participation alone are generally not 
sufficient.

Alan

At 17/02/2011 09:10 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
If Alan can speak to this at the Council meeting on the 24th that would be 
helpful.

The current document (Section 2.1.1) states that when there is a Working Group 
a “Call for Volunteers” will be circulated “as widely as possible in 
order to ensure broad representation and participation in the Working 
Group.”  This includes “Distribution of announcement to GNSO Stakeholder 
groups, Constituencies and/or other Supporting Organizations and Advisory 
Committees.”

It sounds as if the ALAC is just affirming their support, but it would be 
helpful to get some clarity.

Thanks.


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.


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [ mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 8:59 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] FW: ALAC Statement on GNSO WG Guidelines

I'm not sure I understand the concerns regarding the involvement of the
ACs. All stakeholders have been invited/permitted to be involved in GNSO
policy WGs since we've been using them with or without guidelines. Is
the ALAC simply encouraging that to continue, or are there specific
concerns that the guidelines are lacking in that regard?

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] FW: ALAC Statement on GNSO WG Guidelines
> From: Glen de Saint Géry
> Date: Thu, February 17, 2011 3:26 am
> To: Council GNSO
>
> Forwarded From: ICANN At-Large Staff
>
> Dear GNSO Secretariat,
>
> On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, we have the honor to 
> transmit to you the ALAC Statement on the GNSO WG Guidelines.
>
> We would appreciate if you could forward this Statement to the GNSO Chair and 
> Vice-Chairs for consideration at the GNSO Council Meeting scheduled for 24 
> February 2011.
>
> The ALAC welcomes any comments the GNSO Council may wish to make by reply.
>
> Regards,
>
> Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, 
> Marilyn Vernon,
> ICANN At-Large Staff
>
>