RE: [council] Proposed Amendments to JAS motion

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

Rafik,

I think we are getting closer.  I took your concepts and how would this work?

Resolved:
The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for its 
efforts and its dedication to completing the work on such a tight schedule, and
The GNSO Council requests that the report be put out for community review as 
soon as possible, and
The GNSO Council  forwards the second JAS Milestone Report  to the ICANN board 
for informational purposes to demonstrate the progress made by the JAS WG so 
that it may refer to that progress in their discussions with the GAC,
The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff begin assessing whether the 
recommendations are implementable, and
The JAS Working Group continues working to deal with any issues that may arise 
in the upcoming review by the community, and
That the JAS Working group publish their final report after this review process.
Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate 
its decision to the ALAC Chair.


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: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 12:22 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Amendments to JAS motion

Hello Jeff,

thank you for offering some amendments, please find my answers below:
2011/6/7 Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
All,

I have given this motion a good deal of thought and am still waiting feedback 
from my stakeholder group.  Given the attention that the JAS working group has 
gotten from the GAC and Board and the desire of all of us to ensure that all 
economies have access to the new round of gTLDs, a number of people and groups 
have been afraid politically to state anything that could in any way be 
perceived by anyone as being negative towards the work that is underway.  
Although the work has been tremendous to date especially given the tight 
timing, and the cause is certainly a worthy one, I do believe that we cannot 
compromise our processes and set bad precedent simply because we afraid of how 
we may be perceived politically by those that are not following everything 
going on at the GNSO.

Therefore, I wanted to draft an e-mail explaining the issues I have personally 
with the motion and suggest some amendments that may alleviate some of the 
issues for me.   The motion, as it currently stands now, is based on a 
milestone report and therefore is not by definition final.  The report contains 
some good principles and ideas that need to be flushed out more (as the report 
admits).  The motion asks the GNSO to do a few things:

1.        Putting the report out for public comment

2.       Forwarding the report to the Board for review and approval

3.       Having ICANN staff begin implementation

4.       Having the JAS WG deal with issues that arise in community review

5.       Having the JAS Group publish the final report after the review process

Numbers 1, 4 and 5 certainly make a lot of sense to me and are in line with 
what normally happens with policy groups.  However, I have issues with 2 and 3. 
 I do not understand the notion of forwarding a non-final report to the board 
for approval.

acknowledging that, what do you think of this proposal and rewording?:

"The GNSO Council  forwards the  second JAS Milestone Report  to the ICANN 
board for informational purposes to  allow for evaluation of the progress of 
JAS WG and its relevance to discussion with the GAC"

we are not requesting approving for the MR2, and the GNSO will vote later to 
approve the final report, does it make sense for you?

Nor do I understand the notion of having staff begin implementation of a 
non-final report prior to GNSO approval of the final recommendations much less 
Board approval of the final recommendations.

in order to avoid delay in implementation and understanding your concern, I 
suggest this rewording:
"The GNSO Council request ICANN staff begin investigating on implementation of 
the recommendation pending Board approval, and "

the idea is to ask ICANN staff to investigate the recommendation for 
feasibility and study them, it is not implementation per se and it is aimed to 
avoid delays.

Therefore, I would propose that the following amendments be made to the 
resolved clauses so it now reads:

Resolved:
The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for its 
efforts and its dedication to completing the work on such a tight schedule, and
The GNSO Council request that the report be put out for community review as 
soon as possible, and
The JAS Working Group continues working to deal with any issues that may arise 
in the upcoming review by the community, and
That the JAS Working group publish their final report after this review process.
Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate 
its decision to the ALAC Chair.

I know I run the risk of being criticized on the Council list and the JAS WG 
list as being obstructionist or not caring about the needs of the developing 
communities.  I have also seen on the JAS WG list that incumbents are trying to 
keep out competition or that we are trying to delay the process.

I want to make clear that you are mentioning personal opinions of some members 
who may feel frustrated, but definitely it is not a WG position,

Best,

Rafik