On 10 May 2012 09:43, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
JAS: ALAC and GNSO Council agreed that JAS group could continue to work on implementation. JAS group is doing that and had now made an explicit recommendation that a "Son of JAS" be involved in carrying out implementation. If the GNSO Council desires, that recommendation can go to the GNSO COuncil instead of being implemented immediately.
I guess I'm confused. GNSO and ALAC say "keep going" JAS says "to keep going we will form a slightly different group that carries out implememntation rather than policy" Why does this need to go back? When did the g-council get involved in implementation micromanagement?
Why does it even need approval at all. It is obvious that one power
the ICANN Staff has, and should have, is the ability to bring in advisors on any process. If they wish to use JAS experienced advisors in the implementations and deployment of a plan suggested by JAS, who is the g-council to tell them they can't?
Maybe it's merely a matter of optics. Staff bringing on ex-JAS advisors sounds different than "son-of-JAS WG populated by staff and ex-JAS advisors" I didn't say anything about the GNSO Council being the sole one to
decide anything. My version was based on prior GNSO Council positions (and I think in the current charter) that says a working group cannot report directly to staff/Board but any recommendation must got through chartering bodies.
We've been down this road. And we know how it ends. Lots of wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth, but the job gets done. - Evan