ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] JAS

Sorry Jeff, a very simple question. Why this matter
is not in the scope of the GNSO? Who should think
about the very particular problem: the community
wants GTLD, but have no 1) money and/or 2) experience?
The bylaw defines basic principles of council operations.
But it is not defining a time for a sleep, walk or other
non-listed items. But it doesn't means walking or
sleeping are prohibited.
You, as a VP of law, very educated and experienced 
legal guy should not say "it's not our job". This is
really bad for karma. Especially if boss sees it :)
With your experience and ability to navigate through 
the dark side of ICANN bureaucracy you should give 
council a way, workaround or solution on why
we must do this job and how. Because this job must be done.
And if this job will be done by somebody else, it will
be out of gNSO control and we (including you) can not
guarantee the acceptable result for (in particular gNSO) 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:17 PM
> To: Andrei Kolesnikov; 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Stéphane_Van_Gelder'
> Cc: 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond'; 'GNSO Council'
> Subject: RE: [council] JAS
> Andrei,
> Despite what some have been reporting, the reason for opposing the
> initial motion for JAS had nothing to do with opposing new TLDs,
> killing existing registries, forcing business to incumbents, etc.  The
> reason for opposition is simply that the GNSO Council and its working
> groups cannot and should not be delving into matters that are beyond
> its scope even if the Board or the GAC want that work to be done by the
> The GNSO Council does not have the right to authorize work that does
> not fall within the scope of the GNSO.  That is not a value judgment as
> to whether the work can and should be done, but rather a recognition of
> the fact that if the GNSO itself does not have the authority to delve
> into certain matters (as determined by its charter or bylaws), it
> cannot delegate those matters to others.  If the Board wants that work
> done, then assuming the work is in the scope of ICANN as a whole, the
> Board can delegate those matters to its own working group.
> 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 Andrei Kolesnikov
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 2:08 PM
> To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Stéphane_Van_Gelder'
> Cc: 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond'; 'GNSO Council'
> Subject: RE: [council] JAS
> Guys, the question is not closed. My crystal ball gives me a picture
> that JAS issues will boomerang to gNSO after strong GAC statement
> that larger part of the world was not considered in details.
> It may end up with some kind of weird fast track 2.0 developed
> without gNSO. I really don't want us to face it in the future.
> JAS won't kill dot.coms, they will not rape registration business.
> Let them work as ALAC + GNSO with good diversity and no artificial
> limitations.  There is alternative way of doing things: just do
> it and spend 90% on substance, rather than procedures.
> This is not a procedural game. This is real world with
> real politics.
> --andrei
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> > council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 8:00 PM
> > To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder
> > Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; GNSO Council
> > Subject: RE: [council] JAS
> >
> >
> > 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

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