Re: [council] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations of its Charter

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

Councillors,

Clear concerns have been raised. Does the Council feel a formal message should 
be sent by us to the JAS group in light of this?

Thanks,

Stéphane



Le 13 avr. 2011 à 05:54, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
a écrit :

> I must agree with Jeff.
> 
> Berard
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [council] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations of
> > its Charter
> > From: "Neuman, Jeff" 
> > Date: Tue, April 12, 2011 6:12 pm
> > To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 
> > 
> > All,
> >  
> > I wanted to bring to the Council’s attention a discussion on the JAS 
> > Working Group list which is concerning to me because the conversation by 
> > both the Working Group and ICANN staff, and the planned action items, are 
> > in direct contravention to the approved JAS Working Group Charter.  Bottom 
> > line is that the JAS Working Group is not only providing direct input to 
> > the ICANN Board without consultations with the GNSO (or even the ALAC), but 
> > the JAS Working Group is also planning on delivering its final report in 
> > May directly to the ICANN Board without “the input and consideration by the 
> > respective supporting organizations (GNSO and ALAC).”  I believe the 
> > Council must take immediate action in order to enforce the Charter we have 
> > all approved.  To fail to do so would be an abdication of our 
> > responsibilities and more importantly, would constitute a complete failure 
> > of the bottom-up policy process.
> >  
> > On January 13, 2011, the GNSO Council approved a “Joint SO/AC Working Group 
> > on support for new gTLD applicants (JAS)” that included the following 
> > provisions:
> > “3. The Working group shall report its results and present a final report 
> > directly to the GNSO Council and the ALAC for discussion and adoption, as 
> > appropriate, according to their own rules and procedures.
> > 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.”  See 
> > https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/Charter+as+approved+by+the+GNSO+Council.
> >   
> >  
> > Despite the clear words of the Charter to “report its results and present a 
> > final report to the GNSO Council” and to ensure that “All communication to 
> > the ICANN Board regarding the work of this Working Group shall be through 
> > the respective SO/AC”, the JAS working group on its own initiative (and 
> > with some help from ICANN staff) is going in the complete opposite 
> > direction.
> >  
> > On the JAS mailing list on April 12th, in a post from Avri Doria to the  
> > JAS Group, in referring to criteria for a fee waiver program, the following 
> > was stated:
> >  
> > “We have a requirement to give the Board a draft on Friday, and the work 
> > currently being done is not close to being ready on this issue.”  See  
> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg01378.html.  More 
> > discussion took place between the working group about this report to be 
> > delivered not to the GNSO (or ALAC), but directly to the ICANN Board.   In 
> > a subsequent post from Karla Valente (ICANN staff) to the Working Group 
> > entitled “call today and summary for the Board”, the following was stated: 
> > “Please know that I conveyed to Peter and Kurt that there will be a summary 
> > for the Board by Friday AND that the work done by Friday will not be the 
> > actual "Final Report", which is scheduled to be ready for end of May. I 
> > also added that this summary, due to time constrains [sp.], will not have 
> > the input and consideration by the respective supporting organizations 
> > (GNSO and ALAC).  
> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg01381.html”; I am 
> > requesting that this formally be added to our agenda for April 28th and 
> > request that until that time no summary of work be provided by the JAS 
> > working group to the Board without review by the GNSO.  This again shows 
> > the failure of the cross working group model and the lack of recognition 
> > that persons participating in working groups are there in their own 
> > individual capacities and not on behalf of their constituency, stakeholder 
> > group, advisory committee or even the GNSO.
> >  
> > Best regards,
> >  
> > Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> > 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
> > Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
> > jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  / www.neustar.biz 
> > Please note new address starting March 21, 2011:  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.
> >  
> > 
> > 
>