Fwd: [council] Message from Kurt Pritz
Messages related to URS and JAS from Kurt Pritz in preparation for GNSO Council meeting starting 2.5 hours from now: My translation/summaries: URS: Word "Summit" in budget was an ill-advised choice. Process will be bottom up as per the STI. 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. Alan
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 00:18:07 -0700 Subject: [council] Message from Kurt Pritz
Dear All,
Please find below a message from Kurt Pritz in relation to agenda item 6 (JAS WG) and item 9.3 (URS) for today's GNSO Council meeting.
With best regards,
Marika
From: Kurt Pritz <<mailto:kurt@icann.org>kurt@icann.org> To: Marika Konings <<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: For the Council meeting
Council Members:
I am sorry that I could not join the Council meeting. Please accept the following brief report on issues that have raised by the Council leadership and through your email list. More information can be provided.
Sincerely,
Kurt
Uniform Rapid Suspension: There is a budget line item identified as "URS Summit" Implementation work conducted on the URS to date indicates that the the implementation will not attain the cost target of $300-$500 in URS fee per case. This is based on discussions with WIPO staff, direct communication with the IPC, and examples understood from the ICM registry and Nominet. Because the fee target is a primary goal of the URS, additional work and study should be undertaken to determine if amendments to the program might attain the fee goal and retain the safeguards and other features of the program. This study must be undertaken by a community group. While the scope of the effort is not yet defined, it was necessary to reserve resources for the work in the ICANN's FY13 budget.The line item in the budget is the placeholder for those resources while the best way to accomplish the work can be designed. Again, the work will be done through a bottom-up, community discussion similar to the the work done to create and review the URS in the first instance. The timing of the budgeting process required that we create the line item before planning for this work could be drafted and worked through the community.
Joint Applicant Support Working Group The GNSO Council approved an extension of the JAS charter on 22 September 2011 in order to complete other reports (Milestone 2 report) that have since been completed, and to request that the Joint SO/AC Working Group remain on call to review the outcome of the ICANN implementation of the JAS recommendations. <http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109>http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109. We continue to review implementation details with the JAS either the entire JAS or a sub-group selected by the JAS. Most notably, JAS members have recommended that the community play a role in in the planning for the recruitment, training and operation of the "SARP," the review panels that will evaluate financial assistance applications. This planning includes the idea that the SARP include a Community Member Representative or CMR. Additional information can be provided to the GNSO to augment information provided by the JAS. A report on the details can be made directly to the GNSO Council and ALAC if the Council indicates such a preference.
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? avri
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
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
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
++++1 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 : alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Avri Doria Envoyé : jeudi 10 mai 2012 14:02 À : ALAC Working List Objet : Re: [ALAC] [council] Message from Kurt Pritz Importance : Haute 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? avri _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA C) ----- Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 10.0.1390 / Base de données virale: 1518/3785 - Date: 24/07/2011 La Base de données des virus a expiré.
+1. Just so's you know Avri, ALAC retains the right - and has previously exercised it - to reject/ignore a GNSO finding. I telegraph my own position in this case; summary rejection. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> 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?
avri
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
tijani.benjemaa＠fmai.org