Following a number of interchanges today (most of
them below), Jeff proposed the following motion
that has been accepted as a friendly amendment by Rafik.
Barring some surprise between now and Thursday
(which I don't expect), this pretty well assures the approval of this motion.
Alan
>From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>
>To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>
>CC: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org>
>Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 21:16:14 -0400
>Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Amendments to JAS motion
>
>
>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:Â 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166 Â Â Â
>
>
>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@gmail.com]
>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 <<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>
>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
