ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] JAS

  • To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] JAS
  • From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:38:42 -0500
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <3CDE512E-CBE2-4842-B120-DE106C61A7F2@indom.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <3CDE512E-CBE2-4842-B120-DE106C61A7F2@indom.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Acu35YrdgZYSGN5KSoizZ8Pvv3bxAwAAHX3A
  • Thread-topic: [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


FYI, ALAC Chair Olivier Crépin Leblond has reached out to me to discuss the JAS 

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.



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>