RE: [council] JAS

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

We've been through this already, rather painfully, and spent a lot of
time on it. We ended up at what the majority of the Council believes to
be a good compromise. I don't see why reopening this discussion would
yield any different result.

A single WG operating under two different charters is unworkable.
Personally, I think it looks like there are two options left, 1) since
this is a GNSO issue, we should form a drafting team under our own
version of the charter. It would address the issues and present a
proposal back to the Council to approve and forward to the Board, or 2)
we simply dissolve the CWG and explain the situation to the Board.

In any event, I think it critical that we DO NOT get involved in any
more of these until we work out appropriate rules, procedures,
guidelines, whatever these types of groups.

Tim
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] JAS
From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, January 19, 2011 8:29 am
To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx>


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