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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Response to Alan's question:

Question.   "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?"

Response.  Here was the note originally sent on Monday May 9th, the same day we 
got the report. ALAC specifically requested that it be sent to the Board at the 
same time it was sent to us.  "We request that this Report be forwarded to the 
members of the ICANN Board."  I could only assume that the At-Large Staff did 
just that, but cannot verify since we are not on the Board list.  See note 
below.


-------- Message original --------
Sujet:

Second Milestone Report by the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working 
Group (JAS WG)

Date :

Mon, 9 May 2011 18:27:43 -0700

De :

ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Pour :

Secretary <secretary@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:secretary@xxxxxxxxx>

Copie à :

ocl@xxxxxxx<mailto:ocl@xxxxxxx> <ocl@xxxxxxx><mailto:ocl@xxxxxxx>, 
carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx> 
<carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>, 
rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx> 
<rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>, ICANN At-Large 
Staff<staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto: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 by the Joint 
SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG) (attached).  We 
request that this Report be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Board.

The main objective of the JAS WG is to develop a sustainable approach in 
providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and 
operating new gTLDs Registries.

This Report was received by the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and Generic 
Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 6 May 2011 and is currently undergoing 
evaluation. Comments from the At-Large Community are now being gathered until 
13 May 2011 and will be transmitted to the Board in a separate document.  The 
ALAC ratification process will follow, the results of which will also be sent 
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>


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 Alan Greenberg
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 11:50 AM
To: GNSO Council
Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report

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