RE: [council] JAS

["Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei@xxxxxxxx>]

gNSO can authorize the space flight to the Mars if it 
will work for the good Board advice and budgeted. 
Board is not God, Bylaws are not sacred tablets, there 
are no internet gods around. What will happen if gNSO 
steps a little bit out of predefined little mind box? 
We all will be fired? :)  
I say nothing new.  
Again Council spends 90% of its time resolving procedural 
questions rather than stepping into the core. 

--andrei

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 8:59 PM
> To: Alan Greenberg; Stéphane Van Gelder; GNSO Council
> Cc: Bruce Tonkin; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
> Subject: RE: [council] JAS
> 
> 
> Sorry to sound overly formulistic here, but the GNSO Council cannot
> authorize work that exceeds its scope.  Therefore, whether you call it a
> working group, discussion group, play group, study group or any other
> group, there are certain subjects that we the Council should not be acting
> on.  If people want to get together on their own and discuss these items,
> then by all means (lest I be criticized of stifling speech), but in the
> end, the GNSO Council may only address those items within its scope.
> 
> Things like discussing brokering arrangements between Registry front end
> and back-ends, establishing a foundation to give grants to TLD applicants,
> etc. are not GNSO items.  They should not be delivered to the GNSO (as the
> GNSO) and should not be taken up by the GNSO.  Of course that is only my
> opinion, but was the basis for my alternate motion.  According to the
> Bylaws, "There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic
> Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for
> developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies
> relating to generic top-level domains."
> 
> Many of the items in the original motion and the ALAC-approved charter do
> not relate to "substantive policies related to generic top-level domains."
> 
> 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 Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 12:44 PM
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder; GNSO Council
> Cc: Bruce Tonkin; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
> Subject: Re: [council] JAS
> 
> 
> At this stage, I do not believe that there is
> anyone on the WG who is not interested in working
> on the "additional" items, so having the ALAC
> "take them back" really means that the same WG
> participants will work on them, but with a WG
> name that is different and we will need to schedule different meetings.
> 
> So why not just allow the single WG to work on
> the union of the two charters and report back,
> either with the recommendations flagged with
> respect to which AC/SO it is targeted at, or more
> awkwardly, produce two reports. Same net result with no artificial
> barriers.
> 
> I am no longer on the ALAC and cannot speak on
> the ALAC's behalf, but I believe that this has
> good support in the ALAC. I am copying Olivier on this note.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 21/01/2011 07:06 AM, 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.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >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".
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Stéphane
> 
>