RE: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

If "the ICANN staff that supports the ALAC 
submitted it directly to the Board at the same 
time it was forwarded to the GNSO", it is 
problematic. And I am sure that the ALAC would agree.
What is the origin of this claim or the evidence of this happening?

Alan

At 23/05/2011 08:03 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> I really do not understand why we would have the 
> statement recommended by Bill. That has never 
> been the issue with the other Councilors on this 
> list.   Perhaps there was a post or two on blogs 
> elsewhere, but that was not the concern 
> expressed by Councilors and I do not see why we 
> should be addressing that point.
> The issue for me (and some other councilors on 
> this list) has been that the ICANN staff that 
> supports the ALAC submitted it directly to the 
> Board at the same time it was forwarded to the 
> GNSO, and the ALAC formally forwarded to the 
> board for its consideration prior to the GNSO 
> having a chance to review it (much less approve 
> it).  As we have seen, this report is already 
> being considered by the Board and the GAC giving 
> the appearance that the GNSO?s input into the 
> matter is irrelevant.    So the whole concern 
> expressed by Councilors in January with the new 
> charter about not communicating directly with 
> the Board with the GNSO Council?s input was 
> completely circumvented by the ALAC because that 
> was not in their version of the 
> Charter.  Granted we cannot control what is 
> another SO?s charter, but we can make sure in 
> the future that we do not approve any CWGs where 
> that CWG has a provision that is inconsistent with ours.
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> Please note new address:  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.
>
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 7:43 AM
> To: William Drake
> Cc: GNSO Council
> Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
>
> Thanks Bill.
>
> The message would then become:
>
> 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. A motion to do this 
> was proposed at our May 19 teleconference and 
> tabled until our next meeting, on June 9.
> I will therefore look to get back to you after 
> this meeting to provide you with an update on 
> the GNSO Council's decision re the JAS report.
> In light of false information that has been 
> circulated on the matter, the GNSO Council would 
> also like to confirm that the JAS WG 
> simultaneously submitted its Report 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
> GNSO Council Chair
>
>
> If anyone disagrees with the content of the 
> message as stated, please say so by COB tonight 
> so that I can send the message tomorrow as planned.
> Stéphane
>
> Le 23 mai 2011 à 13:16, William Drake a écrit :
>
>
> Hi Stéphane
>
> On May 23, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
>
>
> Discussions by them of a "way forward" on a 
> report that hasn't yet been approved by us may 
> just be thinking ahead, or it may be that they 
> have not cottoned on to the fact that the report hasn't yet been approved?
> I suspect they do understand what is plainly 
> obvious but believe consideration of a "way 
> forward" is necessary nonetheless.  Which would 
> be a sound conclusion, given the serious need to 
> broaden both international participation in 
> gTLDs and political support for ICANN.
> With regard to your letter, may I suggest a 
> small and incontrovertibly factual amendment 
> that would be entirely in keeping with your 
> purely informational objective here?  How's 
> about adding the following:  "In light of false 
> information that has been circulated on the 
> matter, the GNSO Council would also like to 
> confirm that the JAS WG simultaneously submitted 
> its Report to ALAC and the GNSO for 
> review."  This is should eliminate the NC 
> opposition to a letter (haven't asked, but believe so).
> Bill