RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report

["Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear friends,

I'm not jealous who and why sent a message from ALAC to the Board.  Why should 
I spend my time digging into this?

I care it's 17th of May 2011 and in June ICANN will launch a massive ad 
campaign about new gTLD. Guys @ communities from different geographical regions 
who can't afford to pay upfront a lot of US Dollars (why it's not рубли or人民币?) 
will go to GAC (some will go to ITU directly) with very reasonable question: 
what about us? I bet JAS will be adopted, it's part of the ICANN strategy to be 
on the bright side of the force. 

 

I see VI déjà vu happening right now. And really would like Councilors and gNSO 
stakeholders to take it as granted and try to adopt it while the window still 
open until the next JAS milestone report which might be the final call. 

 

yours,

 

--andrei

 

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 9:16 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis; GNSO Council
Subject: RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support 
Second Milestone Report

 

During my tenure on the ALAC, we generally voted on issues such as formal ALAC 
statements, approval of the creation of WGs or charters. And of course all 
issues that clearly required "formal" action under our rules or ICANN Bylaws - 
elections, changes to our rules of procedure, approval of ALSs and such. 

For more operational issues, we tend to work by consensus and only revert to a 
formal vote if there is an objection raised. In our earlier days, there was 
some mistrust of the Executive Committee, but that is generally not an issue 
now and the ALAC will often delegate operational issues to the ExCom.

I would have to go back and check transcripts to be sure, but my recollection 
is that the decision on the detail of how to handle the JAS report was 
delegated to the ExCom, as the timing was far too tight to convene an ALAC 
meeting or schedule a formal vote. And to be candid, we did not imagine that it 
would end up being controversial. There certainly was discussion and agreement 
on the need to get the report to the Board in time to meet their publication 
deadline for their retreat, recognizing that there would still be time for us 
to submit a brief statement prior to their actually discussing it (still a wild 
guess if they will nor not, since no agenda has yet been published).

Alan

At 17/05/2011 12:42 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:



Alan,
 
Thanks for that.
 
Quick question; does the ALAC vote on this sort of stuff or just “decide and 
go”?
 
Thanks.
 
Adrian Kinderis

 
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [ mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 7:54 AM
To: GNSO Council
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support 
Second Milestone Report
 
I will try to address Jeff's questions, but will in parallel pass my answers by 
the ALAC to ensure that I am not putting words into their collective mouths.

First, I read Mary's "the chartering process" to mean "the process laid out in 
their charter(s)".

On why At-Large staff forwarded the report to the Board, this was done at the 
request of the ALAC through its Chair and Executive Committee and was not an 
independent action of staff..

Regarding the appropriateness of one of the chartering organizations sending 
the report to the Board, the GNSO charter had the following sentence which the 
ALAC copied verbatim: "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." There is nothing there that I 
construe to meaning that the chartering organizations must work in tandem.

Alan

At 17/05/2011 09:02 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

I also would like to see the statement about the "scrupulous observance of the 
chartering process" removed. We still need to find out why the at-large icann 
staff sent the report to the board on May 9th as is indicated in Olivier's 
note. I am also not convinced that one organization sending the report to the 
board without the approval of the other organization is in line with the 
chartering process, but we can discuss that further. 
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Vice President, Law & Policy 
NeuStar, Inc. 
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx 


 
From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx [ mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 08:12 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; 
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Council GNSO 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support 
Second Milestone Report 
 
No objection if you remove the last sentence. There is no chartering process 
for CWGs. The ALAC and GNSO could not even agree on what the charter should be. 
And at least a few of us have concerns about how and why CWGs are being 
formed.Tim
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> 
Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:45:21 +0200
To: Council GNSO<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support 
Second Milestone Report
Councillors,

Please find below the NCSG's suggestion on a message which I could send to the 
Chairman of the Board in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO.

Thanks Mary for providing this draft.

Please let me have your comments.

Stéphane



Le 14 mai 2011 Ã  16:31, <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> a 
écrit :


Hi - sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the Council letter; there 
has been some lively discussion among some NCSG folks about it.
 
We suggest the following draft:
 
Dear Peter,
 
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD 
Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the 
other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has 
not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward 
with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to 
provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible. 
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the 
JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the chartering process, in submitting its 
Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review. 
 
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
 
Best regards,
Stephane van Gelder
Cheers
Mary

 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 
USA Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: 
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the 
Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> 
From: Stéphane Van Gelder< stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> >
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx>, Council GNSO 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
Date: 5/14/2011 5:18 AM
Subject: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support 
Second Milestone Report
Thanks Olivier. 

GNSO Council, FYI.

A good weekend to all.

Stéphane



Le 14 mai 2011 à 11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit :


Dear Stéphane,

please find enclosed, a copy of our follow-up message to the Board including 
ALAC comments.
Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any query about its contents.
Have a good week-end!
Kind regards,

Olivier

-------- Message original -------- 
Sujet: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone 
Report
Date : Fri, 13 May 2011 20:26:34 -0700
De : ICANN At-Large Staff  <mailto:staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Pour : Secretary  <mailto:secretary@xxxxxxxxx> <secretary@xxxxxxxxx>
Copie à : ocl@xxxxxxx  <mailto:ocl@xxxxxxx> <ocl@xxxxxxx>, 
carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx  <mailto:carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx> 
<carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>, rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx  
<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx> <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx> , ICANN At-Large Staff 
 <mailto:staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Dear all,  
The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the 
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC): 

*       The Second Milestone Report of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant 
Support Working Group ( JAS WG), with a revised ALAC introduction (entitled 
“Status of this s Documentâ€Â); and 
*       The Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second 
Milestone Report.  

We request that these documents (attached here) be forwarded to the members of 
the ICANN Board.   
The Second Milestone Report was received by the ALAC and the Generic Names 
Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 7 May 2011.  Then, the At-Large staff, on 
behalf of the ALAC, initially forwarded this Report to the Board on 9 May 2011. 
 Please note that the Report itself has not been substantively changed since 
the Board initially received it on 9 May.
During the period 7–133 May, comments on the Report were collected from the 
At-Large Community.  These comments are the basis for the Statement of the ALAC 
on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report attached here.
The ALAC ratification process for the Second Milestone Report and the ALAC 
Statement will begin on 14 May, and the results will be forwarded to the Board.
           
Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted 
independently and has not reached the approval stage. 


Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and Marilyn 
Vernon
ICANN At-Large Staff

email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org
website: www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>  



 
<jas-milestone2-report-7may11-en-alac-revision.pdf><AL-ALAC-ST-0511-2 ALAC 
Statement on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report - EN.pdf>