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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Katim,

Please refer to my email dated May 25, and more specifically this excerpt: 
"your previous message led me to understand that this was an official Board 
request. If so, I would like to understand why the Board thinks it's OK to plan 
a meeting opposite our weekend GNSO sessions, which will already be severely 
disrupted at the Singapore meeting by the ongoing GAC/Board discussions?"

Your email below seems to confirm that this is not an official Board request. 
You indicated that your are "informing the rest of the Board", as well as the 
GAC, and you also suggest that ALAC and the GNSO request this meeting, which 
before I understood to be at your initiative. So it looks like this is now 
being turned around and instead of initiating the meeting, you are now asking 
us to do so.

Once again, I would request clarification of the process here. If you are just 
trying to sort out the planning details and the initial idea that you had 
floated of having the meeting on the Sunday is not set, I would repeat my 
earlier statements and ask that they be given due consideration.

As stated before, I think all in the GNSO understand the intent of the meeting, 
however it is important to us that meetings such as this one are not just added 
to the ICANN meeting agenda ad-hoc and put opposite our weekend sessions, where 
the GNSO community puts in a lot of extra time to get its work done and serve 
the rest of the ICANN community.

So I would ask that the meeting, which I know several GNSO Councillors would 
like to attend and support, not be scheduled opposite our weekend sessions.

Thanks,

Stéphane



Le 28 mai 2011 à 01:18, Katim S. Touray a écrit :

> Dear Olivier,
> 
> Thanks so much for your invitation for us to join the ALAC call on the JAS WG 
> report.  I am, by this e-mail, informing the rest of the ICANN Board, as well 
> as my GAC counterpart Leads (Alice Munyua, and Jayantha Fernando) on 
> "Providing opportunities for all stakeholders, including those from 
> developing countries" during the Board-GAC consultations on the new gTLD 
> program.  Heather Dryden, the GAC representative on the ICANN board is also 
> copied on this.  I hope board members interested in joining the call can 
> indicate so, while the GAC representatives can share the e-mail with their 
> colleagues so those of them interested in joining us can also do so.
> 
> With regards the best time for the call, I suggest you decide on one of the 
> dates you provide below, and those of us who can, and are interested in 
> joining can do so.
> 
> And then there's the matter of having a multi-stakeholder meeting in 
> Singapore.  My suggestion is that JAS WG or ALAC/GNSO Council lead the 
> request for such a meeting, and invites the board, the GAC, GNSO, and the 
> rest of the community to attend.  Please let me know if you still think it 
> would be better for me to make a formal request for such a meeting to be 
> scheduled for Singapore.
> 
> I think that's about all for now.  Again, thanks so much for your invitation, 
> as well as your efforts in helping us find a way to provide support to needy 
> new gTLD applicants.
> 
> Have a great weekend, and best wishes!
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Katim
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> Dear Katim,
> 
> thank you for your kind email and your suggestion which was received very 
> positively by members of the JAS working group when the discussion came up.
> 
> Both the GNSO and the ALAC charters for this working group include the 
> following sentence:
> 
> "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."
> 
> However, a direct interaction between the various ICANN communities and the 
> JAS working group participants has always been very welcome by the ALAC. 
> After all, the JAS working group is open to all participants, GAC and Board 
> members included.
> 
> Your suggestion was therefore discussed during the ALAC monthly call on 24 
> May 2011. 
> A motion for an invitation of interested parties was presented and voted on 
> by the committee, as follows:
> 
> --- cut here ---
> The ALAC is pleased to note interest from the Board and other stakeholders 
> towards the second Milestone Report of the Cross-community Joint Applicant 
> Support Working Group (JAS WG). To this extent, the ALAC therefore welcomes 
> the organisation of a conference call -- for interested members of the JAS 
> WG, ICANN Board, GNSO, GAC, At-Large and other interested community members 
> -- to discuss the status and way forward for the JAS WG. We also request the 
> creation of a multi-stakeholder meeting on this issue to be held at the ICANN 
> meeting in Singapore.
> --- cut here ---
> 
> A vote was performed with 13 out of 15 ALAC members being present on the 
> call. 
> It resulted in a unanimous 13 yes, 0 objections and 0 abstentions.
> 
> I therefore can give you the green light from the ALAC to proceed forward 
> with setting up such a call, and to consider the request for the creation of 
> a multi-stakeholder meeting on the JAS issue to be held at the ICANN meeting 
> in Singapore.
> I understand that the current standard call times for the JAS working group 
> are Tuesday 13:00 UTC and Friday 13:00 UTC. May I therefore suggest the 
> consideration of any of those future times:
> 
> - Tuesday 31 May 2011 - 13:00 UTC
> - Friday 3 June 2011 - 13:00 UTC
> - Tuesday 7 June 2011 - 13:00 UTC
> - Friday 10 June 2011 - 13:00 UTC
> 
> In the interest of swift synchronization, I am CC'ing this message to Gisella 
> and Karla who will be able to coordinate call participants, but I would 
> kindly ask you that you coordinate the Board's participant list as well as 
> the GAC's participant list.
> 
> While thanking you again for your suggestion, I look forward to hearing from 
> you soon.
> 
> Kindest regards,
> 
> Olivier Crépin-Leblond
> ALAC Chair
> 
> 
> 
> On 23/05/2011 09:50, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote :
>> Dear Katim,
>> 
>> thank you very much for your kind message. From discussions that have taken 
>> place in the JAS working group, I am aware that the group would be very 
>> interested indeed in such an interaction. As far as the ALAC is concerned, I 
>> will ask for this question to be added to the agenda of our forthcoming 
>> monthly call, tomorrow Tuesday. I'll get back to you in due course. 
>> Warmest regards,
>> 
>> Olivier
>> 
>> On 23/05/2011 03:13, Katim S. Touray wrote :
>>> 
>>> Dear Olivier and Stéphane,
>>> 
>>> First, let me congratulate you and your teams, as well as the JAS WG on 
>>> their second report.  I've had the opportunity to go through it, and it's 
>>> quality work.
>>> 
>>> To follow on the second JAS WG report, I would like to ask if you'd be 
>>> interested in organizing a conference call for interested board members and 
>>> the GNSO, GAC, and At-Large reps to discuss the status and way forward for 
>>> the recently released JAS WG report. The idea was presented at the recently 
>>> concluded board retreat in             Istanbul that a public meeting on 
>>> the JAS WG report (with the participation of the board and GAC) will be 
>>> helpful, and toward this end, it would be useful to have a conference call. 
>>>  Please let me know if this makes sense to you and let me know when you 
>>> want to have the call, if indeed you want to have it.
>>> 
>>> Again, thanks to all of you and your teams for the great work you're doing 
>>> on the issue!  I hope we'll all be able to come together to have a useful 
>>> program we all can be proud of.  Have a great week, and best wishes!
>>> 
>>> Sincerely,
>>> 
>>> Katim
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
> 
> -- 
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>