RE: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
As per my message of May 11 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg11292.html), the Chair of the GNSO Council first received a pointer to the copy late on May 7th (UTC). A PDF version was sent a few hours later and was forwarded to the Council. The Chair of the ALAC received it at the same time as Stephane. The paper was cleaned up (but not changed in substance) and was submitted to the Board by At-Large staff at the request of the ALAC Chair at 01:27 (UTC) on May 10, about two days later. Council received a copy of this e-mail which you appended below. Note that the timestamp in the embedded mail was UTC-0700. Alan At 23/05/2011 01:21 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: 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 <mailto:staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Pour : Secretary <mailto:secretary@xxxxxxxxx><secretary@xxxxxxxxx> Copie à :<mailto:ocl@xxxxxxx>ocl@xxxxxxx <mailto:ocl@xxxxxxx><ocl@xxxxxxx>, <mailto:carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx><carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>, <mailto:rafik.dammak@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 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 VernonICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>www.atlarge.icann.org Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy Please note new address: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166The 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 GreenbergSent: 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 20166The 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 GelderSent: 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 ChairIf 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
|