Re: [council] JAS motion

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jeff,

I am happy to clarify and avoid any confusion that you may have.
here quick answers to your questions.


   - it already has had community comment once, but a final one for the
   Board's benefit.


   - Yes, the implementation work should start in parallel so that there is
   a chance for this to be available when the new gTLD process begins. As with
   the gTLD process, once the implementation is ready, the Board will have
   another opportunity to review and give a final go ahead or stop.  But it
   will take time for the Staff to think through this proposal. And since this
   is important to the GAC and ALAC,having a plan in implementation study makes
   it less likely that the start of new gTLDs will be held up because of the
   absence of a plan to support applicants from developing regions.


   - The Board is only going to review during the May retreat. Decisions
   won't be made until June and at that time, hopefully, the GNSO will have had
   time to review.



Regards

Rafik Dammak
Twitter: @rafik
Linkedin: http://tn.linkedin.com/in/rafikdammak



2011/5/11 Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>

>  I am actually a little confused by the motion. It talks about putting this
> out for community review, but at the same time forwarding it to the Bd for
> approval AND for the staff to begin implementation.
>
> shouldn't the motion stop at putting it out for community review?
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Vice President, Law & Policy
> NeuStar, Inc.
> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>  *From*: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent*: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 08:22 AM
> *To*: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc*: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Glen de Saint Géry <
> Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject*: Re: [council] JAS motion
>
> Thanks Rafik.
>
> Is there a second for this motion?
>
>  Stéphane
>
>
>
> Le 11 mai 2011 à 13:16, Rafik Dammak a écrit :
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to submit this motion regarding the JAS milestone report.
>
> Regards
> Rafik
>
>
> Whereas:
>
> The GNSO council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working Group (JASWG)
> on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and
>
> The Working Group released it  Milestone Report posted for consideration
> by the Board, Chartering Organizations and at-large Community. This report 
> documented
> the completion of work as defined in the orignal charter and requested an
> update to the Working Groups charter, and
>
> The GNSO and ALAC, separately, renewed the Working Groups charter with
> additional work item in February 2011, and
>
> The Joint SO/AC Working Group received and discussed the public comments,
> and
>
> The Joint SO/AC Working Group has completed the work as defined in its
> extended charter and published a second milestone report (
> https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations#)
> on 8 May 2011 covering those chartered items (
> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20110113-1) entitled JAS Milestone
> Report. and
>
> The GNSO council does not wish to delay the start of the new gTLD
> application process, and
>
> The GNSO council does not wish to delay implementation of support programs
> for applicants from developing regions,
>
> Resolved:
>
> The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for
> its efforts and its dedication to completing the work on such a tight
> schedule, and
>
> The GNSO Council request that the report be put out for community review as
> soon as possible,
>
> The GNSO Council approves forwarding the  second JAS Milestone Report  to
> the ICANN board for review and approval, and
>
> The GNSO Council request ICANN staff begin working on implementation of the
> recommendation pending Board approval, and
>
> The JAS Working Group continues working to deal with any issues that may
> arise in the upcoming review by the community, the  Board and from the Staff
> in the process of implementing the proposals, and
>
> That the JAS Working group publish their final report after this review
> process.
>
> Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to
> communicate its decision to the ALAC Chair.
>
>
>