ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] JAS

  • To: <jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] JAS
  • From: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 21:25:55 +0000
  • Cc: <ocl@xxxxxxx>
  • Importance: Normal
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I particularly believe: 
On a cross community Wg we have two chartering organizations, with equal 
capacities and possibilities to see, and to have opinion about the same object 
under discussion.
When the consensus is obtained,  all works well.
The problem arise when we have two different and irreconcilable positions.
What are the solution for this cases?. 
The absense of operating principles and procedures for this Cross Community WG 
need to be solve for the future. JAS is a first example, but could be more in 
the future.
We can´t to ask opinion of the ICANN legal councilor in each opportunity that 
this cases happen, Or promote a second round of discussions after to be taken 
On the other side, we need to accept the possibility of differents points of 
view. In fact inside our council the resolution was taken for the mayority, not 
for unanimity.
my two centsCarlos Dionisio Aguirre
former ALAC member by LACRALO
Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423

> From: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
> To: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: ocl@xxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:38:42 -0500
> Subject: RE: [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
> 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 >>>