Guys, the question is not closed. My crystal ball gives me a picture that JAS issues will boomerang to gNSO after strong GAC statement that larger part of the world was not considered in details. It may end up with some kind of weird fast track 2.0 developed without gNSO. I really don't want us to face it in the future. JAS won't kill dot.coms, they will not rape registration business. Let them work as ALAC + GNSO with good diversity and no artificial limitations. There is alternative way of doing things: just do it and spend 90% on substance, rather than procedures. This is not a procedural game. This is real world with real politics. --andrei
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 8:00 PM To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] JAS
We've been through this already, rather painfully, and spent a lot of time on it. We ended up at what the majority of the Council believes to be a good compromise. I don't see why reopening this discussion would yield any different result.
A single WG operating under two different charters is unworkable. Personally, I think it looks like there are two options left, 1) since this is a GNSO issue, we should form a drafting team under our own version of the charter. It would address the issues and present a proposal back to the Council to approve and forward to the Board, or 2) we simply dissolve the CWG and explain the situation to the Board.
In any event, I think it critical that we DO NOT get involved in any more of these until we work out appropriate rules, procedures, guidelines, whatever these types of groups.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] JAS From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Date: Wed, January 19, 2011 8:29 am To: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>
Councillors,
FYI, ALAC Chair Olivier Crépin Leblond has reached out to me to discuss the JAS situation.
Unofficially, because this has not been ratified by ALAC yet, it is looking unlikely that they will accept our modified charter.
Some within ALAC are calling for either the version of the charter that was approved by ALAC to be maintained, or for the JAS group to work under 2 separate charters.
The second option seems surreal to me, and what I communicated to Olivier is that I see two ways forward:
1. ALAC and the GNSO sit down together and manage to find common ground on a mutually acceptable charter. This does present some complexities for us though, as any changes to the charter that we approved during our last teleconference meeting would no doubt need a new motion. 2. We both refer the problem to ICANN's general Counsel.
Because we are dealing with a cross community group and these do not really have any clearly defined status in ICANN at the moment, this problem is one that we may not feel confident to tackle alone, hence my second proposal.
I will keep the Council informed of any further development on this front. Also, please note that an update from ALAC on the JAS situation is included in the agenda I have drafter for our next meeting. The Council leaders are currently working on this draft, which will then be submitted to the Council, as usual.
Thanks,
Stéphane