- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Re: JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 18, 2011

Jan. 18, 2011

Following is the latest round in the discussion of the New gTLD Applicant Support Charter discussion. I would suggest that this is a topic that should be discussed and potentially resolved during next week's ALAC meeting. Although clearly this may not be fully resolved, I would like to be able to give an update of where we are at the February 3rd GNSO Council meeting. See my note below for a possible way forward. As noted, I have not fully thought it through or discussed it, but it may be a viable way forward. Alan >To: Andrew Mack <amack(a)amglobal.com>, Eric Brunner-Williams ><ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter >Cc: JAS <soac-newgtldapsup-wg(a)icann.org> > >Given the amount of time that the GNSO has taken (discussion time, >not elapsed), I do not see much interest in re-opening this >discussion in the near future. If the ALAC decides to (basically) >stay where it is with its charter (perhaps adding the IDN issue), >then there can be some discussion between the ALAC and GNSO, >although I do not quite know what format such discussions would >take. Ultimately, for the GNSO to adopt a more liberal Charter, it >will take a vote of the Council and I do not see such a vote passing. > >I have not thought this through or discussed it with anyone, but the >only path forward that seems to make sense is for the WG to continue >and in its final report, make it crystal clear which recommendations >fall under which charter(s) allowing the parent bodies to adopt >their part if they wish. > >Alan > >At 17/01/2011 09:42 PM, Andrew Mack wrote: >>All, >> >>I too am concerned that the Neuman draft is too limiting and was >>disappointed that this became an issue. I agree that taking all >>discussion of real money off the table overly limits our discussion >>and is unlikely to move us forward as we'd like. That said, it >>does seem that there should be some sort of compromise possible in >>the wordsmithing, since as Alan says the GNSO version is mostly >>contained in the ALAC version. >> >>As for what Eric says below, while there wasn't full consensus on >>what work we'd do to support minority languages and scripts, I >>didn't read our report as saying we shouldn't continue with the >>work. As there are at least a few of us that would like to >>continue this -- and since it affects so many people and clearly >>has some GNSO support -- I would like to see us keep it on our list. >> >>My apologies as I won't be able to be on the call tomorrow, but >>will be there for the next one. >>Regards, Andrew >> >>Andrew A. Mack >>Principal >>AMGlobal Consulting >> >>+1-202-642-6429 <mailto:amack@amglobal.com>amack(a)amglobal.com >>2001 Massachusetts Avenue, NW First Floor >>Washington, DC 20036 >><http://www.amglobal.com/>www.amglobal.com >> >> >> >>From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net> >>To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >>Cc: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; JAS >><soac-newgtldapsup-wg(a)icann.org> >>Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 12:19:14 PM >>Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter >> >> >>Thank you Alan. >> >>I don't recall how something we spent as much time on as minority >>languages was excluded from the proposed charter that Rafiq >>proposed to the Names Council, but that is water under the bridge. >> >>Eric

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter
by Drake William Jan. 15, 2011

Jan. 15, 2011

Hi On Jan 14, 2011, at 10:17 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > Clearly this problem was not considered important by the GNSO when it voted > down the WG-proposed (and ALAC-endorsed) WG charter. On Jan 14, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > I think the current attitude of the GNSO Council, indeed, does not bode well for future efforts. > Or even for some past efforts. One small and obvious point may be worth bearing in mind when framing this: the Council was and is not of one mind, JAS has always had strong support from noncommercial types, and if memory serves 5 of 6 NCSG Councilors plus 2 NCAs voted for Rafik's motion. Best, Bill

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 15, 2011

Jan. 15, 2011

At 14/01/2011 04:17 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 14 January 2011 01:05, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >Regarding what the ALAC does, it is a bit problematic. I also would >like to see the group continue on the path addressing a variety of >support methodologies. But I also see a real problem raising its head >if one of the first multiple-SO/AC chartered groups cannot really be >a joint operation. It does not bode well for future efforts. > >Clearly this problem was not considered important by the GNSO when >it voted down the WG-proposed (and ALAC-endorsed) WG charter. Well, in fact it was a major issue of discussion. In the end, I diffused a call for additional discussion about what to do with the conflicting (or at least different) charters by saying that the issue does not exist until the ALAC decides not to change its charter to be in line with the GNSO one. So as this discussion seems to be heading, it will come up at the GNSO again. But more important, there was the start of a discussion that went something like this (my paraphrasing, but I can point you to the relevant part of the transcript once it is available): - cross-SO/AC working groups may be powerful ways of attacking some class of problems; - BEFORE we go ahead with them, we should fully understand all of the implications; - one of the implied difficulties is just the one that has come up now - synchronizing the different SO/AC's. It was pointed out that it is a bit late to be having this discussion regarding the JAS group, since it was already chartered (and is now supposed to be working to address specific Board-requested issues), but it will come back up again. As I have already mentioned, the GNSO is currently VERY process-focused. This is understandable with regard to formal Consensus policy, but it extends way past that. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 15, 2011

Jan. 15, 2011

Richard, I do not think that it was written with that in mind, but according to the words, I think that you are correct. ;-) Alan At 14/01/2011 12:29 PM, Richard Tindal wrote: >I didn't participate in the GNSO discussions on this, so I apologize >for my ignorance, but doesn't this GNSO charter item leave a fairly >broad scope for the form of assistance?: > >b) Propose mechanisms for determining whether an application for >special consideration should be granted and what sort of help should >be offered;

1 0

JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 14, 2011

Jan. 14, 2011

At its meeting today, the GNSO approved a new charter for the JAS group. This charter differs significantly from the one that was originally proposed to the GNSO and later approved by the ALAC at its November 2010 meeting. I have formatted both charters for a left-right comparison and it is attached. The ALAC must now decide which path to follow: 1. Adjust its charter to match the new GNSO one; or 2. Keep the existing charter or modify it somewhat. This would mean that the WG is working to two different charters simultaneously. I am not a fan of the new charter. I find it far too controlling and eliminates actions which the WG felt were important when the revised charter was first drafted. The vote for this charter was preceded by much discussion and a vote on the original charter as well as an amendment which would have significantly augmented the final version, both of which failed. The charter does include a specific item on IDN, an option that the WG had considered but later decided not to include. The final vote was very close, and nearly failed. A failure would have left the WG unchartered (un-re-chartered?) by the GNSO, a situation that would also have been difficult to handle. But for whatever reasons, we now have the two charters as shown in the attachment. Obviously (to me in any case), the ALAC should seek the thoughts of the WG members regarding how it should proceed. I also note that after the Cartagena meeting (where the GNSO had not approved the draft charter), there was a strong feeling within the WG that: - it had an expanded charter from the ALAC; - the original charter from the GNSO was thought be some to allow further work, even if not specified in detail; - work should proceed without delay. For reasons that I do not fully understand, that has not happened, and I do not believe that the group has met at all this year. Alan

3 2

Re: [ALAC] [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 14, 2011

Jan. 14, 2011

Sending this message to both lists was probably a mistake, because I suspect that those without posting rights on the other list will be held for moderation or bounced. In any case two small reply comments. Regarding being kind, I was trying really hard to present what happened and not editorialize. I know a bit sneaked in. Regarding the chain of command, I was amused by that but not really worried, as the chartering body is the NORMAL place to submit a report, and if there is some reason that this needs to be bypassed for expediency or whatever, I have faith that at least the ALAC would bless that. If a document is submitted by the WG to (say) the Board, it is still just a WG opinion and not that of the chartering body (which is what caused my amusement. Regarding what the ALAC does, it is a bit problematic. I also would like to see the group continue on the path addressing a variety of support methodologies. But I also see a real problem raising its head if one of the first multiple-SO/AC chartered groups cannot really be a joint operation. It does not bode well for future efforts. Alan At 13/01/2011 11:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >Alan, > >Thank you for forwarding that. > >I think you are too kind in your reference to the charter approved >by the GNSO. > > >As far I ca tell it only approves aid, when that aid is in >partnership with an incumbent. While this was one type of aid the >JAS group was recommending, to provide only this form of aid strike >me as a form of neocolonialism where of those helped would only be >helped by an incumbent partner. No fee reductions. No financial >aid. Just partnership with an incumbent. Is this really something >this group can just accept? > >The GNSO motion takes another unconscionable step in trying to >prevent the JAS WG from sharing it results and recommendations with >anyone other than the chartering organization. That is, it would >establish a military style chain of command for all JAS WG >recommendations that would bar the group from communicating with the >Board , the GAC or the community at large. I do not believe this >sort of top down restriction of WG flexibility should be accepted. > >It is my fervent hope, that the ALAC does not change its JAS charter >based on the GNSO motion. > >As for why we haven't met yet, I can only imagine that the new >co-chairs are catching their breath after the holidays. And I know >that Rafik has been busy banging his head against the wall of the >Contracted Parties House representatives in the GNSO trying to gain >support or the charter we proposed. As a member of the GNSO council >he is stuck between a rock and a hard place and I do not envy his position. > >I personally think we should just charge ahead on the charter as >specified by the ALAC. > >a. > > >On 13 Jan 2011, at 22:23, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > > At its meeting today, the GNSO approved a new charter for the JAS > group. This charter differs significantly from the one that was > originally proposed to the GNSO and later approved by the ALAC at > its November 2010 meeting. > > > > I have formatted both charters for a left-right comparison and it > is attached. > > > > The ALAC must now decide which path to follow: > > > > 1. Adjust its charter to match the new GNSO one; or > > > > 2. Keep the existing charter or modify it somewhat. This would > mean that the WG is working to two different charters simultaneously. > > > > I am not a fan of the new charter. I find it far too controlling > and eliminates actions which the WG felt were important when the > revised charter was first drafted. > > > > The vote for this charter was preceded by much discussion and a > vote on the original charter as well as an amendment which would > have significantly augmented the final version, both of which > failed. The charter does include a specific item on IDN, an option > that the WG had considered but later decided not to include. > > > > The final vote was very close, and nearly failed. A failure would > have left the WG unchartered (un-re-chartered?) by the GNSO, a > situation that would also have been difficult to handle. But for > whatever reasons, we now have the two charters as shown in the attachment. > > > > Obviously (to me in any case), the ALAC should seek the thoughts > of the WG members regarding how it should proceed. > > > > I also note that after the Cartagena meeting (where the GNSO had > not approved the draft charter), there was a strong feeling within the WG that: > > > > - it had an expanded charter from the ALAC; > > - the original charter from the GNSO was thought be some to allow > further work, even if not specified in detail; > > - work should proceed without delay. > > > > For reasons that I do not fully understand, that has not > happened, and I do not believe that the group has met at all this year. > > > > Alan<Charters.pdf>

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 14, 2011

Jan. 14, 2011

Eric, I haven't looked at the Redline and Blueline versions that you are talking about, but there is no error (that I am aware of) in my report of what was approved. The IDN item was not in the WG's proposed charter (ie what Rafiq proposed to Council). Debbie Hughes (I think) proposed an amendment to add it. Cannot remember whether that was taken as friendly or passed, but it doesn't really matter. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben proposed an amendment to Jeff's new charter which included the IDN point. That amendment did not pass, but ultimately that one item from it was again proposed by Zahid Jaamil and was accepted as a friendly amendment. Alan At 14/01/2011 10:40 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: >Alan, > >A question about the 2-up presentation of the charter texts. > >Looking at the original text, 1(i) read "Design mechanisms to >encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in >small or underserved languages." > >In the Redline (Jeff Neuman's draft) version, 1(c) and 1(e), 1(f), >1(g), 1(h) and 1(i) are absent, in addition to other changes. > >In the Blueline (Avri as formated by Wolf-Urich) version, 1(c) and >1(e), 1(f), 1(g), 1(h) and 1(i) are present, in addition to other changes. > >What puzzles me is how 1(i), the item on IDNs, appears in your pdf, >and in your textual commentary, absent from the column entitled >"Original ALAC Charter" and present in the (narrowly approved) column >entitled "New GNSO charter". > >Is this a error in transcription? > >Eric

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter
by Tijani BEN JEMAA Jan. 14, 2011

Jan. 14, 2011

Thank you Alan, Avri, Alex and Eric, Indeed, its disappointing. But it was expected, and since Cartagena, we were convinced that it will happen. We decided to try to find other constituencies to join the JAS WG, and we were thinking especially to the GAC. We really need to get closer to them. Who is taking the lead for such thing? I understood that Evan and Olivier were trying. Is there any chance to have the GAC as a chartered organisation for this WG? In any case, I do stick to the version adopted by ALAC, and dont see any reason that ALAC changes and joins the GNSO version. Yes Alan, its a pity that we lost the 2 or 3 last weeks. We were supposed to rush and try to be on time for a proposal to the board before the launch of the final DAG edition. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Message d'origine----- De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@icann.org] De la part de Avri Doria Envoyé : vendredi 14 janvier 2011 05:57 À : JAS Cc : ALAC Working List Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter Alan, Thank you for forwarding that. I think you are too kind in your reference to the charter approved by the GNSO. As far I ca tell it only approves aid, when that aid is in partnership with an incumbent. While this was one type of aid the JAS group was recommending, to provide only this form of aid strike me as a form of neocolonialism where of those helped would only be helped by an incumbent partner. No fee reductions. No financial aid. Just partnership with an incumbent. Is this really something this group can just accept? The GNSO motion takes another unconscionable step in trying to prevent the JAS WG from sharing it results and recommendations with anyone other than the chartering organization. That is, it would establish a military style chain of command for all JAS WG recommendations that would bar the group from communicating with the Board , the GAC or the community at large. I do not believe this sort of top down restriction of WG flexibility should be accepted. It is my fervent hope, that the ALAC does not change its JAS charter based on the GNSO motion. As for why we haven't met yet, I can only imagine that the new co-chairs are catching their breath after the holidays. And I know that Rafik has been busy banging his head against the wall of the Contracted Parties House representatives in the GNSO trying to gain support or the charter we proposed. As a member of the GNSO council he is stuck between a rock and a hard place and I do not envy his position. I personally think we should just charge ahead on the charter as specified by the ALAC. a. On 13 Jan 2011, at 22:23, Alan Greenberg wrote: > At its meeting today, the GNSO approved a new charter for the JAS group. This charter differs significantly from the one that was originally proposed to the GNSO and later approved by the ALAC at its November 2010 meeting. > > I have formatted both charters for a left-right comparison and it is attached. > > The ALAC must now decide which path to follow: > > 1. Adjust its charter to match the new GNSO one; or > > 2. Keep the existing charter or modify it somewhat. This would mean that the WG is working to two different charters simultaneously. > > I am not a fan of the new charter. I find it far too controlling and eliminates actions which the WG felt were important when the revised charter was first drafted. > > The vote for this charter was preceded by much discussion and a vote on the original charter as well as an amendment which would have significantly augmented the final version, both of which failed. The charter does include a specific item on IDN, an option that the WG had considered but later decided not to include. > > The final vote was very close, and nearly failed. A failure would have left the WG unchartered (un-re-chartered?) by the GNSO, a situation that would also have been difficult to handle. But for whatever reasons, we now have the two charters as shown in the attachment. > > Obviously (to me in any case), the ALAC should seek the thoughts of the WG members regarding how it should proceed. > > I also note that after the Cartagena meeting (where the GNSO had not approved the draft charter), there was a strong feeling within the WG that: > > - it had an expanded charter from the ALAC; > - the original charter from the GNSO was thought be some to allow further work, even if not specified in detail; > - work should proceed without delay. > > For reasons that I do not fully understand, that has not happened, and I do not believe that the group has met at all this year. > > Alan<Charters.pdf>

1 0

Urgent: proposed email to GAC/ Board Chairs
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Jan. 14, 2011

Jan. 14, 2011

Dear ALAC members, you might be aware that there is currently much internal debate going on within GAC and the Board, and elsewhere, about the organisation of the summit which will bring GAC and the Board together. A significant tug of war appears to be taking place between partisans of the open meeting model and those of the closed meeting model. Another area of unknown unknown is where and when this meeting is due to take place. Please find enclosed below, a letter which I propose emailing to the Chair of the GAC and the Chair of the ICANN Board. Again, time is of the essence, so please read this: ** I shall be sending this in 24H if there is no objection from the ALAC ** The aim is to catalyse the finding of a solution by suggesting one that's agreeable to everyone and avoid a situation where the results of such a meeting hold no legitimacy due to a flawed process. I look forward to your feedback. Thanks, Olivier --- body of the letter --- The following is a suggestion which I make in an individual capacity, after having listened to the argument of many people involved in and out of the decision process. [ this will be replaced by: "which is made with agreement of ALAC" ] Proposed meeting Date: Mid-February Rationale: there are concerns that a meeting taking place at the end of the month will not give enough time for the Board to take notice, discuss and act on the points raised in the meeting, in time for the SFO meeting. Similarly, the GAC members would not have enough time to report to their governments and their stakeholders. As a result, there would be a real threat that the meetings in SFO would not contribute positively to the possibility of pressing the "go" button in SFO. More delays. More unhappy constituencies. Proposed meeting type: a mix of open & closed Rationale: both closed and open models have their advantages & inconvenients. Proponents of the closed model argue that there are several points of internal GAC & Board relationship building which might not benefit from being public - and could stop from GAC or Board members from being free to say what they wish to say during the meeting. This argument certainly has its validity. Proponents of an open meeting argue that ICANN, a champion of the open model of transparency, cannot politically have a closed meeting between the GAC and the Board. In the light of the uproar released by civil society triggered by the recent CSTD decisions regarding IGF-related governance, it is a simple case of eating one's own dog food. Opponents of the open model argue that if the meeting is going to be turned into a "circus" with people after people coming onto the microphone and giving mixed signals, this would be a waste of time. I therefore propose: - that the meeting, likely to last 2 days to be thorough, should be composed of a mix of closed and open meetings, with an emphasis that the closed meeting time shall constitute less than 40% of the total time allocated for meetings. - that it shall be possible to follow the open meeting remotely, through an Adobe Connect room, Internet streaming and a telephone bridge, to a standard no lower than the standard proposed at an ICANN Annual General Meeting (AGM). - that the Chair and Vice Chairs of SOs and ACs, plus a select number of people in the GNSO (number to be determined but akin to a selection of people taking part in Cross Community Working Groups (CWGs)) shall be invited to make comments and take part in the discussion in *some* of the open sessions. They shall be called "Community Representatives (CR)". - that the Chair and/or Vice Chairs of SOs and ACs might, at a common GAC-Board invitation, appear or make statements for a part of the closed meetings, provided there is consensus between GAC and Board on their presence. - that the rest of the people following the meeting shall have observer status but shall have full freedom to be in touch at all times with their Community Representatives and shall therefore be able to speak through them. Yours sincerely, --- cut here --- -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

8 13

Re: [ALAC] Urgent: proposed email to GAC/ Board Chairs
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 13, 2011

Jan. 13, 2011

I have had neither any involvement or knowledge of this change, but I do note that it comes in parallel with the change from requiring a local host who made a very substantial contribution to the meeting, to ICANN being largely responsible for (at least some) meetings - a change for which there has been a great deal of demand within ICANN. If the budget (from ICANN fuinds) for such meetings is to not go up, increased sponsorship revenue is pretty much required (or a VERY reduced budget and/or charges for attendance). Alan At 12/01/2011 07:36 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >...and just in case anyone may has noticed it or not, if you go to the >sponsorship page of the ICANN meeting page at >http://meetings.icann.org/sponsorship , ICANN has increased the >sponsorship costs by factors of 2.5 to 10, so much about >"multi-stakeholder" and bottom-up stuff. Top sponsorship per ICANN >meeting is half a million dollars and the minimum sponsorship to have >a stand was increased to USD 25K from USD 10K. This excludes alot of >stakaeholders and people that may want to also set-up stall and raise >awareness about their groups.

1 0