Re: [council] JAS

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

Bill,

You are right to note the diversity of votes, but then end result is the motion 
the Council ended up passing. That is what we have to work with, not the 
previous motion.

So if I summarize the current proposals, we can either ask the JAS WG to work 
with both charters and highlight which charter it is responding to, where, when 
it comes to draft its report. Or we can ask the WG to work on the base charter, 
and "add" the parts that ALAC agreed to.

There are major differences in both approaches. Option 2 means the WG produces 
a report that the GNSO Council can endorse as-is. Option 1 may mean that the 
Council has to "pick and choose" which bits of the report it wants to endorse, 
and which it doesn't.

Stéphane

Le 21 janv. 2011 à 16:30, Drake William a écrit :

> 
> Hi
> 
> On Jan 21, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Councillors,
>> 
>> Bruce and I have been discussing the JAS situation off list and he has a 
>> suggestion on another possible way forward we might consider. I would like 
>> to make it clear this is being presented in both Bruce and myself's personal 
>> capacity. This is just us brainstorming the issue, not suggesting ways 
>> forward as Board member and GNSO Chair.
>> 
>> One thing the GNSO could look at is asking the JAS WG to work on topics of 
>> mutual interest or common ground as defined in the GNSO motion. ALAC could 
>> take items that are in addition back for their own internal discussion. They 
>> could then look at providing advice to the Board directly.
> 
> Alternatively, as Alan suggested, JAS could work on both and produce a report 
> in which the two sets of issues and recs are clearly delineated and the 
> Council considers adopting those under its charter.  
> 
>> 
>> As far as we are concerned, even though this is a CWG, it is still up to us 
>> as the GNSO to endorse those items we agree with and formally provide our 
>> recommendation to the Board.
> 
> Right, but does endorsing only those we agree with necessarily require that 
> we try to go out and block colleagues in a CWG from working on those we don't?
> 
> Also, as we go forward, can we please bear in mind that 12 Councilors voted 
> against the JAS' version and 8 voted for it?  And that the previous Council 
> endorsed the JAS launch the board asked for, and that anyone who had issues 
> with the direction of its work could have joined it to 'right' the course, 
> etc?  There are a diversity of views here, even if not everyone has the 
> stomach to jump in and react to every ripe statement about JAS and the 
> concerns it's trying to address.
>> 
>> Also, to avoid confusion between use of the term working group within the 
>> GNSO procedures, maybe the joint SO/AC groups could be called "discussion 
>> forums".
> 
> How about Council Uber Alles Forums?  Not a great acronym but it'd capture 
> the spirit of the thing.
> 
> Bill
> 
>