- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [soac-discussion] Universal Acceptance of Domains - 14 March Discussion Scheduled at the ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Feb. 29, 2012

Feb. 29, 2012

A forwarded message, in preparation of Costa Rica meeting. Possible controversy regarding this subject, with a question about universal acceptance of .XXX Kind regards, Olivier -------- Message original -------- Sujet: [soac-discussion] Universal Acceptance of Domains - 14 March Discussion Scheduled at the ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica Date : Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:02:03 -0800 De : David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> Pour : soac-discussion(a)icann.org <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> To Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees Leadership: Universal Acceptance of Domains is an ongoing effort within ICANN dedicated to raising awareness of issues relating to ensuring that all domain names work correctly in software on the Internet. ICANN initiated the project when issues were first identified relating to the earlier rounds of adding new gTLDs. For example, some software and web sites have made the assumption that top-level domains were always either 2 or 3 characters long, which is problematic for a number of newer TLDs. More attention has been given to these issues with the adoption of IDN top-level domains, and with the expectation that many more ASCII and IDN gTLDs will be added to the DNS in the near future. In order to best assure successful adoption of these various new domains, and that software is implemented correctly to cater for all available domains, collaboration is needed between software developers and vendors, network administrators and others. ICANN is conducting outreach within the ICANN community to develop a plan to best improve awareness of these issues. A working group meeting on this topic is scheduled to take place during the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica on Wednesday, 14 March 2012. This will serve as a good opportunity for all involved to share their experiences and suggestions. These suggestions will feed into ICANN's future work in this area. *We hope that representatives* *from various Advisory Committees and constituencies can attend this working* *session and provide us with their valuable feedback.* Please direct your questions or comments on this topic to Nadia Sokolova <nadia.sokolova(a)icann.org <mailto:nadia.sokolova@icann.org>>. Nadia is working in the DNS root zone management area in IANA department and manages this project. David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 Washington, D.C. 20005 Office: 202.570.7126 Mobile: 202.341.3611

2 2

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross and IOC Protection under the new gTLD process
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 25, 2012

Feb. 25, 2012

At 24/02/2012 10:38 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 24 February 2012 17:17, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >At 24/02/2012 04:56 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > > > >On a personal basis, I had the choice of whether to join the DT and >work to make the end-result as palatable as I could, or to simply >ignore it (or boycott is as you phrase it). I chose the former, but >that was a personal decision and not one on behalf of ALAC or >At-Large. If I had been given a directive from ALAC not to >participate, that might have altered the situation. But there were >many months during which this could have happened, and it did not. I >look forward to seeing what collective action ALAC takes on this now. > > >On the contrary, I applaud your initiative and participation. > >My suggestion of a "boycott" is to not endorse the results of this >action, but to do so properly requires informed action, and your >involvement has offered that information. > >It's also my understanding that one of the options offered to the >drafting team was to insist on no exceptions, but that was rejected >because the decision had already been made (opaquely and without >consulting stakeholders) to "do *something". There is no doubt that we certainly could have said that the exception should be removed from the AG, but there was a perception (which I certainly shared)that this would be a futile gesture and our time was better spent trying to ensure that what we ended up with was reasonable and equitable. I, for one felt that it was important to try to set expectations for other applicants to understand what the process would be for their applications if there was a perceived overlap with the protected marks (ie the oft-quoted example Olympus Cameras). As stated in the AG that application might sail through, or might end up in a costly and time-consuming objection process. With the proposal, it is still far from clear, but if there is a problem, it is likely to show up much earlier in the process and in the worst case, will likely result in a full refund if the application is not allowed. >- However, the GAC is one component of the MSM, albeit (to >paraphrase George Orwell), a part that is perhaps more equal than other parts. > > >In order for the MSM to work there still needs to be consultation >(before decisions are made) with other stakeholders. > >If the GAC is to always get its way without the ability to challenge >what it wants, why bother with ICANN anyway? Sadly, some of those same governments are already saying why bother with ICANN. I guess my only reply is to get the MSM working so that GAC input is truly factored in early. > >- To not factor in such GAC advice, even if delivered at the last >moment, is to pretend that the processes and decisions that preceded >it are infallible and by definition cannot be changed. > > > >"Factor in" is not the same thing as "the decision's already been >made by them, opposition is fultile" > >As you well know, I would be the last one here to claim that the >processes and decisions are infallable. But they have far more >evidence of deliberation and transparency than the current >overriding process cooked up by the Board and GAC, which is indeed >being presented to the GNSO (and even more indirectly, ALAC) as >something that "by definition cannot be changed". In this case, and at the top level, I think that opposition was futile. Perhaps we have learned a bit from the process so it will not be repeated, at least not in exactly the same way. It is quite unclear (in my mind) whether what is a reserved name is truly a GNSO policy issue or not. My understanding is that the list has changed a number of times and with no GNSO policy involvement. If that is correct (and I don't really know if it is), then it was a Board prerogative to make the change. Since we are doing the present work in a DT and it will then go to Counsel, and not via a PDP, that tends to say the interpretation is correct. In any case, no doubt the next problem area will have a different set of parameters and we will have to learn anew... > >I find the last conclusion to be a "stick your head in the sand" >position that ignores that the world changes and we must always be >in a position to reconsider past decisions when alerted to problems with them. > > > >Reconsider? Sure. There are plenty of things about ICANN -- and >specifically the gTLD program -- that I consider badly flawed and >would love to have reconsidered. >And any process of reconsideration cannot be as opaque as the one >inflicted on the GNSO. > >But, as you say, some stakeholders are more equal than others, and >ALAC is the least equal of all. Just don't expect us to legitimize it. Not a thing I would presume! ;-) >That being said, hopefully this round of last-minute GAC input has >been troubling to all parties, including (I think) the GAC, and >perhaps we are on a path to doing things in a more rational way in the future. > > >"But, nonetheless, regardless of how troubling THIS is, let's ram it >through anyway.....?" > >Obviously they can't be THAT visibly troubled... > >But we can be. Indeed. And with that I will remind myself that this is just ICANN, shut down my computer and resume my real life. Alan >- Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross and IOC Protection under the new gTLD process
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 25, 2012

Feb. 25, 2012

At 24/02/2012 04:56 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 24 February 2012 16:41, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >I have made it clear that to the extent that there have been comments >on the issue within At-Large and ALAC, the tone has been that special >exemptions for these bodies should not be granted. That view is >shared by some other participants in the DT. However, it was also >generally accepted that an exemption has already been granted and >there is little opportunity for the GNSO to change the basic concept. > > >It is absolutely necessary to make clear the position that "the >exemption has already been granted" is a grotesque subversion of the >multi-stakeholder model that diminishes public respect for ICANN. >This example makes clear that the MSM can be easily dispensed when >politically difficult. > >I also object to the substance of the proposal, but what is truly >odious is this method of decision making in which bad decisions are >make in secret and then stakeholders are left to determine the best >way to "polish the turd". > >Personally, I disagree with our accepting a "best that we can get" >fallback position because it validates (and encourages more use of) >this top-down, opaque process. I would rather boycott this exercise >in futility, but explain why. > >Or opposition to both the substance and the process of this should >be clear and unambiguous, IMO. > >- Evan Evan, that is a position that the ALAC may well choose to take. On a personal basis, I had the choice of whether to join the DT and work to make the end-result as palatable as I could, or to simply ignore it (or boycott is as you phrase it). I chose the former, but that was a personal decision and not one on behalf of ALAC or At-Large. If I had been given a directive from ALAC not to participate, that might have altered the situation. But there were many months during which this could have happened, and it did not. I look forward to seeing what collective action ALAC takes on this now. On a philosophical level, I am not nearly as upset as you are. My reasoning goes as follows: - This is NOT what the original GNSO recommendation on new gTLDs said to do. - However, the GAC is one component of the MSM, albeit (to paraphrase George Orwell), a part that is perhaps more equal than other parts. - To not factor in such GAC advice, even if delivered at the last moment, is to pretend that the processes and decisions that preceded it are infallible and by definition cannot be changed. I find the last conclusion to be a "stick your head in the sand" position that ignores that the world changes and we must always be in a position to reconsider past decisions when alerted to problems with them. That being said, hopefully this round of last-minute GAC input has been troubling to all parties, including (I think) the GAC, and perhaps we are on a path to doing things in a more rational way in the future. Or not... Alan

2 1

Red Cross and IOC Protection under the new gTLD process
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 24, 2012

Feb. 24, 2012

During the discussions between the Board and the GAC preceding the launch of the new gTLD program, the GAC requested special protection of Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC/RC) and International Olympic Committee (IOC) names, due to the special protection given to these names by a variety of unique international agreements and treaties. The Board responded by reserving a specific list of names from being used during the first round of the new gTLD program, and remanded the issue to the GNSO for further deliberations. Such deliberations were to address both use of RC/RC and IOC names both at the top and second level for new gTLDs. The Board action was implemented by means of provisions in the current <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-11jan12-en.pdf>Applicant Guidebook, Section 2.2.1.2.3 Page 2-10 to 2-11. To enable the GNSO to properly consider the GAC request, additional information was requested of the GAC. This <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/1540128/GAC+advice+on+IOC+and…>additional detail was provided in September. A GNSO Drafting Team was created with the intent of providing guidance to the GNSO. Details of the groups deliberations (including transcripts) can be found in the <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/>GNSO Calendar, with meetings generally held on Wednesdays, and in the groups <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-iocrc-dt/>mailing list (which has seen much traffic). If the GNSO were to take no action at this point, the exemptions already in the Applicant Guidebook will stand. I have made it clear that to the extent that there have been comments on the issue within At-Large and ALAC, the tone has been that special exemptions for these bodies should not be granted. That view is shared by some other participants in the DT. However, it was also generally accepted that an exemption has already been granted and there is little opportunity for the GNSO to change the basic concept. My personal position has been that although these special exemptions are not what I would have preferred, it is clear that the Board has already agreed to the basic concept, and the DT's major responsibility is to ensure that the exemptions can be implemented in as rational and effective means as possible, minimizing the need for extraordinary action later in the process and definitely minimizing the impact on other gTLD applicants. The DT decided that the first priority was to provide clarification on how top-level domains should be treated, as it was viewed as important that any changes be finalized prior to the end of the gTLD application period. Following extensive discussion, the group has drafted <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Draft+RCRC-IOC+Recomendation+-+…>a recommendation on how Section 2.2.1.2.3 should be revised. This recommendation, or what results from discussions over the next week, will be discussed with interested members of the GAC on a teleconference on March 2. The intent is that whatever comes out of the next week of discussions go to the GNSO in Costa Rica, for potential adoption in its meeting on Wednesday, allowing the Board to consider adoption on Friday. The DT will likely also suggest that if any applications already submitted are disqualified due to these changes, that the entire application fee be refunded. The above discussion can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/FZ7bAQ. The Recommendation can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/GJ7bAQ. Please add any comments to the recommendation page. Due to the tight timing, the earlier that comments are made, the more likely they are to be considered. Alan

3 2

Advice of NEW Public Comment OPEN on Interin Report re "Significantly Interested Parties" (formerly known as Local Internet Community or LIC) for requests for delegation and re-delegation of a ccTLD.
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Feb. 6, 2012

Feb. 6, 2012

Dear all, Your attention is drawn to http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-03feb12-en.htm where the ccNSO Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FoI) has published its Interim Report which contains draft recommendations on obtaining and documenting support from ³Significantly Interested Parties² (formerly known as Local Internet Community or LIC) for requests for delegation and re-delegation of a ccTLD: A matter that should be of considerable interest and concern for all ALSes and Member of At-Large.... I am satisfied with the WG Report but wish to ensure you all have the opportunity to read, review and comment should you need to, via the PC or of course via me as your active ALAC representative in the WG... The Interim Report is open for public comments until the 30 March 2012. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC Liaison to the ccNSO and Member (ALAC Rep) on the FOI-WG

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Presentation on Whois RT Report
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 24, 2012

Jan. 24, 2012

Thanks. I thought it was quite a good summary. Alan At 24/01/2012 04:52 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >Very detailed indeed. This was really helpful Alan. > >Best > >Fouad > >On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > The following presentation was given to the GNSO Council at its > > meeting last Thursday and may be of interest. > > > > > http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/presentation-whois-policy-draft-report… > > > > > > Alan > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Presentation on Whois RT Report
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 24, 2012

Jan. 24, 2012

The following presentation was given to the GNSO Council at its meeting last Thursday and may be of interest. http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/presentation-whois-policy-draft-report… Alan

3 2

Global reaction to the US SOPA anti-piracy initiative
by Evan Leibovitch Jan. 18, 2012

Jan. 18, 2012

Relevant to ICANN because its provisions include legalized mucking with the DNS. http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/01/internet-regulation?fsrc=nlw… - Evan

2 2

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 18, 2012

Jan. 18, 2012

To get a few facts on the table: The mandate of this group was not to set CCWG rules, but to establish a baseline for what the GNSO thought was important before entering into discussions with the ALAC, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, or whosoever wanted to participate. That is clear in the motion. Since the GNSO rarely "delegates" responsibility to negotiate on its behalf to its Chair or others, it was felt that it was important to understand the overall issues from the GNSO perspective before entering into multi-lateral discussions (which for practical reasons will surely include a only small subset of the GNSO Council). Moreover, it was felt that input from the GNSO as a whole, and not just the Council was important. That being said, the GNSO did have an interest in ensuring that what it proposed was reasonable and factored in, to the extent possible, the needs of other groups. At the express request of the Council, I participated in this group and was more than a bit active. It is not clear exactly what will come out of the final discussions with other ACs and SOs, but I do not recall anything in the final results of this drafting team that are totally unreasonable. Several of the points are very GNSO-centric (and perhaps ccNSO) in that they repeatedly stipulate that formal "policy" must be carried out under the rules set out in the ICANN Bylaws for such policy development. I personally think that this was not needed, since it is in the Bylaws, but others felt it was good to reiterate. The point that will no doubt be a lightening rod following the JAS group is the stipulation that when formed, a CCWG should have a single charter. Although in the far reaches of my imagination I can come up with reasons that this should not be a rule, but I not at all sure that such edge cases need to be dealt with here. If the interests of the various parties are so different at the start, perhaps a CCWG is not what we need. Note that this principle talks about the FORMATION of a CCWG. I do not believe that we have ever participated in a CCWG that had multiple disagreeing charters at the beginning. It is not clear why one would enter into the creation of such a group if the aims of the participating bodies were not similar. In fact, those who were around may recall that for the JAS group, we did agree on a single charter. Due to a clerical (honestly!) error, one clause was omitted from the version that the GNSO approved. When the charter came up to the ALAC, the ALAC decided to drop that clause as well, as it was felt that it was not sufficiently important to warrant delaying the entire process until it could go back to the GNSO for re-chartering (and we believed that the group WOULD look at that issue regardless of whether it was in the charter). Other CCWGs such as DSSA all had a single charter agreed to by one mechanism or another ahead of time. You will notice that the principles are silent on the issue of re-chartering part-way through a process, the situation where JAS blew up. If you recall the sequence of events there: - the WG came up with a suggested revised charter. - this time it was the ALAC that got to it first, and it was approved. - when it came to the GNSO, there was substantive discomfort and they did radical surgery to it, taking out some parts and adding others (one of which the ALAC really liked). - at that point, the JAS group would have had two charters, which in some cases could be construed as requiring they work in two orthogonal directions at the same time - something that was not tenable. - the ALAC revised its version, making it clear that the JAS charter had a core part that was common to both the GNSO and ALAC, and several other end-products that were unique to the ALAC but did not go against any of the core items. - that was perhaps a bit awkward to work with, but the JAS WG was willing and things proceeded to the eventual VERY successful outcome, with the GNSO supporting all end-products equally, even the ones that they had not included in their charter. Another area that may attract discussion is about the rules that a CCWG will follow. The principles simple say that to the extent possible, the WG rules of the constituent bodies should be followed. If they were all the same, that would clearly be no problem. But in fact, other than the GNSO, I suspect no other organization has such a detailed set of rules. The ALAC, in its own WGs, has generally abided by the GNSO rules where they made sense and ignored those that did not. Perhaps some day the ALAC will formalize what its rules are. Or not. It *is* clear that the rules and certainly the practices currently vary, and although I am sure that every organization would feel comfortable with *their* rules dominating, what will come out of this process is some sort of a compromise, perhaps varying based on which bodies participate. And they will likely vary over time as we get used to these new groups. The principles are wisely completely silent on the issue, other than to say that the charter should specify the rules for any given WG. Note that this set of principles does not attempt to address (nor should they) how one reaches consensus within a given WG. Whatever rules are adopted for that group will need to address it, but it may be specific to the issue and who the chartering bodies are. The GNSO meeting where this will be discussed is on Thursday at 11:00 UTC. If anyone has any input for me as the formal ALAC Liaison, please get it to me as soon as possible (the meeting is at 06:00 my time, so I will be offline for the several hours preceding the meeting). As I cannot make suggestions for formal changes to the motion, please make sure to copy Bill as well. Alan At 17/01/2012 04:29 PM, William Drake wrote: >Thanks Evan. We've talked about this enough so >I'm aware of your general stance, which I >broadly share. But what would be particularly >helpful to know is whether AL has any specific >responses to specific elements of the proposed >principles, including suggestions of language >tweaks. If not ok, but thought I'd ask > >Best > >Bill > > >On Jan 17, 2012, at 10:17 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > > > On 17 January 2012 15:23, William Drake <william.drake(a)uzh.ch> wrote: > > > > > >> People may wish to have a look at the Principles > >> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf, > >> which specify that all SO/ACs involved should adopt and follow a single > >> joint charter for CWGs, that CWGs outputs do not express community > >> consensus per se, and so on. > >> > > > > Hi Bill. Thanks for the update, and for the efforts of you and the NCSG on > > the issue. > > > > The GNSO is welcome to do whatever it wants to unilaterally regarding its > > internal processes, but it cannot impose such regulation on others. > > > > As happened with the JAS group, I for one will not abide by any imposed > > regimen that prohibits an important effort from moving forward because a > > community (or group of communities) refuses to agree on a charter (or tries > > to scale back an existing one). Specifically, I would certainly not agree > > to any move that artificially limited ALAC's bylaw-mandated scope by > > excluding the interests of end-users. > > > > It is significant -- and very telling -- that the GNSO policy about working > > with other constituencies was itself formed in isolation from these > > constituencies. This was definitely an opportunity missed, but I won't lose > > sleep over it. It's my understanding that the At-Large Community has always > > been eager to participate in cross-community groups, but we will not have > > the terms of that participation dictated to us. > > > > - Evan > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

4 4

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 18, 2012

Jan. 18, 2012

At 17/01/2012 07:03 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 17 January 2012 17:35, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > >Several of the points are very GNSO-centric (and perhaps ccNSO) in >that they repeatedly stipulate that formal "policy" must be carried >out under the rules set out in the ICANN Bylaws for such policy development. > > >As we have seen in the gTLD rollout, the GNSO has repeatedly shown >its own willingness to overstep its bounds and deal in processes >rather than policy (ie, objection processes). Actually, I think that "willingness" is the wrong word. The GNSO is not limited to policy work, although some on Council have at times taken that position. I view it more as stepping up to their responsibilities to look at a wider range of issues than just making policy. >If the GNSO wants to be anal about how policy can be done, we also >have the obligation to point out that GNSO has less bylaw-based >authority to comment on non-policy implementation matters than ALAC does. > >The point that will no doubt be a lightening rod following the JAS >group is the stipulation that when formed, a CCWG should have a >single charter. Although in the far reaches of my imagination I can >come up with reasons that this should not be a rule, but I not at >all sure that such edge cases need to be dealt with here. > > >I don't see the stretch. Soon to come will be RAA discussions in >which the issue of "rights", for end users and/or registrants will >come out. In previous GNSO meetings I have been told these issues >have been out of scope and are of no interest to them. If there is >future cross-community work on this issue I will not want to >constrain the ALAC's ability to advocate for end-user issues because >it's out of the GNSO's scope. It may mean there are components of >the combined work in which the GNSO may have no interest, but the >lack of shared interest in (what some would see as) a side issue >should not present the larger issues from being discussed jointly. > >There should be many, many opportunities to do cross-community work. >If it is to be constrained to always be the lowest common >denominator of only that which is of interest to all, not much of >this will happen. I don't see any conflict here. If we (At-Large) want to work on something that is counter to the interests (or self-interest) of part or all of the GNSO, then is is not a really good CCWG. We do it alone, or with someone else who IS interested. The GNSO is not the only game in town. If (as you allude) we have interested that are a super-set of GNSO interests but do not conflict, I would think that people of good faith could come up with a charter that covers this. If not, then it reverts to the first case. > >I do not believe that we have ever participated in a CCWG that had >multiple disagreeing charters at the beginning. > > >Alan, we have not participated in that many CCWGs, period. The >concept is still in its infancy and I see these regs as the wedge of >an attempt to thwart this concept before it becomes too dangerous to >established power. There in fact have been a few - both with us and the ccNSO. But my point was that a CCWG is likely to be born out of a common interest. If there is none, then we need another vehicle. To be candid, I fought hard to eliminate that rule, not because I felt we were likely to need to invoke a multiple-charter group, but because I felt that there was no real reason for it. In any specific case, if one or more partners feels that a multi-charter would not work, they have it within their power to simply refuse it at the time. But this was not a battle that I won in that group. Once it goes to the larger community of AC/SOs, perhaps the pendulum will flip the other way. But I really don't think it is a major roadblock regardless. > In fact, those who were around may recall that for the JAS group, > we did agree on a single charter. Due to a clerical (honestly!) > error, one clause was omitted from the version that the GNSO > approved. When the charter came up to the ALAC, the ALAC decided to > drop that clause as well, as it wasfelt that it was not > sufficiently important to >warrant delaying the entire process until it could go back to the >GNSO for re-chartering (and we believed that the group WOULD look at >that issue regardless of whether it as in the charter). Other CCWGs >such as DSSA all had a single charter agreed to by one mechanism or >another ahead of time. > > > >This worked, and is an argument in favour of a status quo of flexibility. 100% agreed. That is my preference. My only argument to the contrary is that as real life unfolds, I really don't think it will matter a whole lot. >You will notice that the principles are silent on the issue of >re-chartering part-way through a process, the situation where JAS blew up. > > > >If the proposed principles demand a single charter, then a >post-creation divergence in charter would demand disbanding of the >WG. This is IMO unacceptable. I don't agree with the conclusion. Once a WG is born, there is no words in the current principles that say that a single charter is required for life. I do believe that some on the GNSO would like to see that, and perhaps on Thursday, they will say so and get their way. But for whatever it is worth, those on the DT were willing to let sleeping dogs lie and not mention it as a principle. JAS was born with a single charter and ended up life with two. If the WG itself had refuse to work in that situation, or if the two charters were really going in opposite directions, the outcome would have been different. > >If you recall the sequence of events there: > > >I recall that ALAC did all the accommodation in an unsuccessful >attempt to find a middle ground. > > >- that was perhaps a bit awkward to work with, but the JAS WG was >willing and things proceeded to the eventual VERY successful >outcome, with the GNSO supporting all end-products equally, even the >ones that they had not included in their charter. > > > >Evidence, please? > >The GNSO motion on the JAS final report did not endorse it at all, >but simply acknowledged it and forwarded it to the Board. > >That hardly constituted "support", and obviously feel short of a >GNSO request that the Board approve the JAS core component requests >(such as fee reductions unconstrained by a fixed fund). Based on the outcome we have today, my reading is that not objecting is de facto acceptance if not throwing their arms around it and hugging the report. > >Another area that may attract discussion is about the rules that a >CCWG will follow. > > >Why does this need to be set in stone? > >Different problems call for different solutions, and constraining >the process before it starts is worse than counter-productive. Again we agree 100%. But for better or worse, the discussion has been started. Not by you or I, but started nonetheless. Alan >- Evan

1 0