Hi, The main point is the difference between the staff using members of the JAS WG as advisors and the staff needing the g-council's by your leave to work with members of the JAS WG. I realize the staff is bending over backwards to avoid the g-council's wrath, but in this case it all appears rather absurd, and any g-council attempt to meddle in this seems totally inappropriate to me. The only reasonable position for g-council to have any in this is to thank the staff for the update on what it is doing. avri On 10 May 2012, at 09:43, Alan Greenberg wrote:
At 10/05/2012 09:02 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
On 10 May 2012, at 08:28, Alan Greenberg 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.
And why should the g-council be the one to decide this? Would it not be enough for ALAC, as the other chartering organization to approve it?
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?
What I gave was my interpretation of Kurt's message. We will see what the GNSO Council says/does later today.
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. Of course, the ALAC could chose to approve and the GNSO either reject or be silent (that has happened before with the first JAS report), but that is technically different from the chartering groups "formally" not being in the process.
Alan