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@neustar.us> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> CC: Council GNSO <council@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@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