RE: [council] JAS update and deadline

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stephane,

I think we understand that, but my question, put another way is - What
leads us to believe that moving the meeting date will in any way help
ensure the WG gets done by first round?  Is there any guarantee that the
WG will have at least a draft report AND draft motion at least two weeks
prior to the 22nd? They should ensure that or the move will be
pointless. Are they figuring in our practice of allowing any SG or C to
ask for a one meeting delay, which means no vote until 6 Oct either way?

They still have nine days before the 31st deadline for the 8th meeting,
isn't there any way they can get us a draft final report and a draft
motion by then? Personally, I think that is the wiser goal for the WG.
Otherwise they risk not getting any formal GNSO position/statement until
Dakar.
 
Tim


> 2011/8/20 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Rafik, can you let us know if an early submittal of a draft to the Council is 
> possible?
> 
> 
> 
> Adrian, Ching: what I am suggesting is a one-off emergency decision on 
> whether to push back a planned Council teleconference. To be clear, this is 
> something that we never normally do, for good reasons such as the 
> predictability of our meeting calendars for us, observers and the whole 
> community.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, it&#39;s clear that pushing back the meeting to accommodate one group 
> is to the detriment of the other important policy work that we currently have 
> going on and the corresponding motions.
> 
> 
> 
> However, we should in my opinion also be mindful of the incredible amount of 
> work that the JAS WG has produced to try and meet the deadline set by the 
> June 20 Board resolution.
> 
> Personally I don&#39;t think pushing back by 15 days will significantly 
> adversely impact the rest of the work we have on. Yes it&#39;s a nuisance, 
> but if it helps finish the JAS work in time for inclusion by the first round 
> of new gTLDs, I think that will serve the community well. And that is 
> something we are obviously keen to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Through its cochairs, the JAS WG has asked the GNSO Council to
> do what we can to help it reach it&#39;s goals. It is with this in mind that 
> I suggest we consider pushing back, and that I suggest in this instance we 
> keep our decision process simple and flexible. So I would shy away from a 
> formal vote and this is why I am asking for any strong objection to be voiced.
> 
> 
> 
> What I would then suggest is that if any opposition is voiced in any way, 
> rather than launching into a lengthy debate, we simply decide to keep to our 
> scheduled calendar and our Sept 8 meeting, no questions asked and no 
> justification needed from those who oppose.
> 
> 
> 
> However, if no opposition is voiced, we would then consider this tacit 
> agreement that the meeting be pushed back.
> 
> I hope this answers your questions and helps clarify my approach.
> 
> 
> 
> Stéphane
> Envoyé de mon iPhone4
> 
> Le 20 août 2011 à 04:46, Ching Chiao <chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit  :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Rafik and Stéphane. 
> 
> Stéphane just to be clear: are we now facing a voting circumstances (moving 
> meeting time or not)? Personally I am open --   but if we are moving the 
> regular call to later date then I think we need a good reason -- given ICANN 
> has already allocated extra staff resource to support JAS work. I very much 
> agree with Adrian on reviewing the current draft so we can help get necessary 
> input from our SGs.
> 
> 
> 
> Ching
> 
> 2011/8/20 Stéphane Van Gelder 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Rafik,
> 
> Councilllors, if a small push back can help the JAS WG meet the 
> Board-requested deadlines, then in my view we should at the very least 
> consider it. But a decision needs to be taken quickly and it needs to be very 
> clearly stated that these are exceptional circumstances and that the Council 
> will not alter it&#39;s calendar everytime a WG needs a little extra time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my conversations with the JAS cochairs and the ALAC chair on this, I have 
> been told that pushing back our Sept 8 meeting by 15 days would give the JAS 
> WG the time it needs to present it&#39;s final report to us.
> 
> I can, of course, also see reasons for not wanting to push our meeting back. 
> So if anyone is very opposed to doing so, please say so by Wednesday next 
> week so that we can take a timely decision.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Envoyé de mon iPhone4
> 
> Le 19 août 2011 à 03:38, Rafik Dammak  a écrit :
> 
> > Dear fellow-councillors,
> >
> > while the JAS WG members are working hard on drafting the final report with 
> > all difficulties(commitment during summer holidays etc) , I am sending this 
> > email to kindly ask for consideration to push back the gnso confcall 
> > planned for 8th September (or considering special call) and also delaying 
> > for few days the deadline for finalizing the report. a webinar for icann 
> > community is also planned to make it more easy to get a   fast track on the 
> > report updates (knowing that is also another workload for WG 
> > members).helping the discussion among councillors and their respective SG/C 
> > regarding the report.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > I will be glad to   get your feedback and answer your questions.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rafik
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ching CHIAO
> Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD.
> Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group
> Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG
> 
> 
> =====================================
> Email: chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx       Skype: chiao_rw
> 
> Mobile:  +886-918211372   |   +86-13520187032
> www.registry.asia |  www.apngcamp.asia
> 
> 
> www.facebook.com/ching.chiao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>