<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [council] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations of its Charter
Thanks Jeff for forwarding this.
Olivier's email raises concerns as it would seem to confirm there is a lack of
clarity in the way the JAS group has been functioning.
On a personal level, I am especially worried to read that a "staff member has
relayed an unsubstantiated demand from the Board" and that as a result, a
member of the group acting of his own accord has prepared a draft report.
The worries that some on this Council have expressed about the way joint groups
work and the risk of seeing them step outside the bounds of the Bottom-up
Policy Development Process are clearly real in this context.
Further to the email I have just sent, I would suggest that this situation does
indeed warrant us sending a message to the JAS group to enquire about this
situation.
Thoughts?
Stéphane
Le 13 avr. 2011 à 13:19, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
> Fyi, I received this from Olivier this morning and not sure he can publish to
> the Council list.
>
> I will separately post a response.
>
> Thanks.
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Vice President, Law & Policy
> NeuStar, Inc.
> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 05:39 AM
> To: Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx>; ALAC EXCOM
> <alac-excom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Fwd: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [council] Concerns over JAS Working
> Group and Violations of its Charter
>
> Dear Jeff,
>
> I am in receipt of the message you have sent to the GNSO council (quoted
> below) concerning the JAS working group alleged violation of its charter.
> Whilst I agree with your comments that the JAS working group has no business
> reporting directly to the Board without the authority of the GNSO council or
> the ALAC, I disagree with your conclusions which paint a completely incorrect
> picture of the JAS WG discussions.
>
> Unless any of the two co-Chairs, Rafik Dammak and Carlton Samuels, have made
> an announcement in the last few minutes, there has been no consensus decision
> that the JAS Working Group would provide direct input to the ICANN Board
> without consultations with either the GNSO or the ALAC. Similarly, I have
> seen no proof whatsoever that a consensus decision has been made for the JAS
> Working Group to deliver its final report in May directly to the Board.
>
> Rather, a demand has been expressed by a *staff member*, relaying an
> unsubstantiated demand from the Board for a report to be sent to them by the
> end of this week. It appears that this was actually not a specific demand,
> but an extrapolation made from a need for all input for the GAC scorecard to
> be examined by the Board, to be "in" by this Friday. I am yet to understand
> what is fact and fiction, and after questioning the source of this alleged
> "demand", have disappointingly received no reply to substantiate any "demand"
> from the Board.
>
> This "demand" was then conveyed and expanded by one of the normal members of
> the working group. That member has, at no time, purported to act in any
> official capacity, and has acted out of their own initiative to make progress
> in writing such a report - forgetting about due process and about the fact
> that neither of the Chairs of the Working Group had ever received a demand
> for an interim report.
>
> In other words, this is a non-event, until a formal demand is made by the
> Board. The JAS Working Group might choose to file an interim status report
> with the GNSO & ALAC and either (or both) might choose to convey it to the
> Board. At this point in time, neither is obliged to do so.
>
> Finally, I deplore your allegation of "failure of the cross working group
> model". Jeff, you are jumping to conclusions based on incorrect allegations
> and IMHO this is not productive. If my message has not made it to the GNSO
> Council list, I should be grateful of you could please be so kind to forward
> it there to set the facts straight.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Olivier Crépin-Leblond
> (speaking in my personal capacity since I have not had the time to consult
> the ALAC due to time pressures)
>
>> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:12:51 -0400
>> Subject: [council] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations of its
>> Charter
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I wanted to bring to the Council’s attention a discussion on the JAS Working
>> Group list which is concerning to me because the conversation by both the
>> Working Group and ICANN staff, and the planned action items, are in direct
>> contravention to the approved JAS Working Group Charter. Bottom line is
>> that the JAS Working Group is not only providing direct input to the ICANN
>> Board without consultations with the GNSO (or even the ALAC), but the JAS
>> Working Group is also planning on delivering its final report in May
>> directly to the ICANN Board without “the input and consideration by the
>> respective supporting organizations (GNSO and ALAC).” I believe the Council
>> must take immediate action in order to enforce the Charter we have all
>> approved. To fail to do so would be an abdication of our responsibilities
>> and more importantly, would constitute a complete failure of the bottom-up
>> policy process.
>>
>> On January 13, 2011, the GNSO Council approved a “Joint SO/AC Working Group
>> on support for new gTLD applicants (JAS)” that included the following
>> provisions:
>> “3. The Working group shall report its results and present a final report
>> directly to the GNSO Council and the ALAC for discussion and adoption, as
>> appropriate, according to their own rules and procedures.
>> 4. All communication to the ICANN Board regarding the work of this Working
>> Group shall be through the respective SO/AC unless expressly approved by the
>> respective SO/AC.” See
>> https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/Charter+as+approved+by+the+GNSO+Council
>> .
>>
>> Despite the clear words of the Charter to “report its results and present a
>> final report to the GNSO Council” and to ensure that “All communication to
>> the ICANN Board regarding the work of this Working Group shall be through
>> the respective SO/AC”, the JAS working group on its own initiative (and with
>> some help from ICANN staff) is going in the complete opposite direction.
>>
>> On the JAS mailing list on April 12th, in a post from Avri Doria to the JAS
>> Group, in referring to criteria for a fee waiver program, the following was
>> stated:
>>
>>
>> “We have a requirement to give the Board a draft on Friday, and the
>> work currently being done is not close to being ready on this
>> issue.” See
>>
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg01378.html
>> . More discussion took place between the working group about this
>> report to be delivered not to the GNSO (or ALAC), but directly to the
>> ICANN Board.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In a subsequent post from Karla Valente (ICANN staff) to the Working
>> Group entitled “call today and summary for the Board”, the following was
>> stated:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> “Please know that I conveyed to Peter and Kurt that there will be a
>> summary for the Board by Friday AND that the work done by Friday will not
>> be the actual "Final Report", which is scheduled to be ready
>>
>> for end of May. I also added that this summary, due to time
>> constrains [sp.], will not have the input and consideration by the
>> respective supporting organizations (GNSO and ALAC).
>>
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg01381.html”;
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I am requesting that this formally be added to our agenda for April 28th and
>> request that until that time no summary of work be provided by the JAS
>> working group to the Board without review by the GNSO. This again shows the
>> failure of the cross working group model and the lack of recognition that
>> persons participating in working groups are there in their own individual
>> capacities and not on behalf of their constituency, stakeholder group,
>> advisory committee or even the GNSO.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
>> 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
>> Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 /
>> jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx / www.neustar.biz
>> Please note new address starting March 21, 2011: 21575 Ridgetop Circle,
>> Sterling VA 20166
>>
>> 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.
>>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|