Hi Stéphane, Thanks for your e-mail responding to mine on the matter of the JAS WG conference call earlier this week. I'm sorry I didn't reply earlier than now because I was traveling to Singapore, and only got here about three hours ago. I sorry to hear you found my e-mail upsetting. As I understand your e-mail, it seems you were (and maybe still is) upset that I: 1. showed a lack of understanding of the basic process your SO is committed to following, namely, its own, and ICANN's bylaws 2. as a board member, and regardless of my "personal interests," should "respect [ICANN's] SOs and ... uphold the processes under which they work" 3. implied in my e-mail that the GNSO is trying to scuttle the process of seeking ways to help needy new gTLD applicants I'm afraid there are serious differences between how you read my e-mail, and what I meant to say. In the first place, I do not see how my saying that the GNSO was slow in responding to the JAS Milestone Report could be amount to my lack of understanding of the basic process the GNSO is following. My statement only mentioned the delay, and not any possible reason(s) for it. While you are perfectly free to argue that the delay was caused by following due process, this would alter not the validity of my statement that the delay might be seen in bad light by people from developing countries. I would suggest that it probably would have been more constructive to seek ways and means of reaching out to the development countries community to explain the reasons for the delay (if you haven't indeed done that), than to get outraged about what I said. I also wonder why what I said should suggest to you that I have not respected or do not respect ICANN's SOs, and do not uphold the processes of their work. I only said what I said because, as we say in my language (rough translation): "it's your brother (or sister) who can tell you you have bad breath." In that sense, my saying what I said was very much in keeping with my duties as a board member, and indeed the duty of us all, that we say what we think is in the best interest of the organization and the community at large, even when it is an unpalatable truth. As to your reference to my "personal interests," I only hope you mean and stop at the fact that I am from an African developing country, and not that I have any personal interest in an entity that my benefit from an implementation of the support program in the future. And let me add that I am happy to put in my efforts in the matter because I sincerely believe it will be a program that, if done right, will benefit not only the developing countries, but ICANN, and the global Internet community at large. This is not about running a charity program for poor people, but a program that will help ICANN build the credibility that it so badly needs in the eyes and minds of many of its stakeholders from developing countries. And lest we forget, that credibility is going to be much needed by ICANN if it is to evolve into a respectable and relevant global organization. You also mentioned that I implied in my e-mail that the GNSO is trying to scuttle the process of finding ways and means of providing support to needy new gTLD applicants. I suggest you re-read my e-mail to convince you that what I said is far from what you claimed I said. I only said that the slowness of the GNSO might be "well be construed by many as an effort by the GNSO to scuttle the entire process ..." This only suggests how people might see what the GNSO is doing, and not that the SO is indeed intent on scuttling the process. I hope my point is clear to you now. Finally, you mention that my e-mail was a breach of the process of the Board working through SOs and ACs. Again, I disagree with you because I suggest nowhere in my e-mail that anyone violate any bylaws. Furthermore, I see it as my duty and indeed right, like everyone else has, to speak up and out when I feel the system is not working as it should, and I have ideas about how to fix things. So please do not take what I said as an attempt to "hijack" (as you say) the core processes we have in place, but as my effort to ensure that the process actually works. I hope you understand. Again, thanks for your e-mail and best wishes for safe travels to Singapore. And by the way, please let me know if you want to discuss this in person. I'll be more than happy to clear up any other issues you'd want me to. Sincerely, Katim On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder < stephane.vangelder@indom.com> wrote:

Hello Katim,

This is a personal reaction to your message.

I am, frankly, aghast that a Board member would send a message indicating that one of ICANN's SOs has been "slow" in acting on a report, in the way you portray the GNSO as having acted with regards to the JAS Milestone Report.

At best, this shows a lack of understanding of the basic process that our SO is committed to following, by its own bylaws and by the ICANN bylaws. Immediately after the JAS had forwarded its report to us, it was considered by the GNSO Council at its next meeting. During that meeting, one of the GNSO groups requested the motion be deferred for one meeting. We have a long-standing custom of entertaining such requests. Hence the GNSO considered the motion again at its June 9 meeting, where I am happy to say that the motion (requesting, among other things, that the report be put out for public comment asap) was approved unanimously by the Council.

Regardless of your personal interests, I would think that one of your duties as a Board member is to uphold the organisation's bylaws, to respect its SOs and to uphold the processes under which they work.

Implying in your message that the GNSO is attempting to scuttle the "entire process of seeking ways... to provide support to needy new gTLD applicants" is not only untrue (as our unanimous vote shows), it is also a serious disregard of the way ICANN and its SOs work. ICANN's bottom-up process is not "pick and choose". Just because, on this issue that you care strongly about, you feel that things are not moving fast enough, this does not justify false allegations of possible attempts by one SO to "scuttle the process".

As your message was sent in the context of a call with the Board, the GAC, Staff and ALAC, I consider it very public. Hence it could also be construed as an attempt to discredit the hard work being done by the community of volunteers that the GNSO represents.

You request suggestions to the Board "to ensure that progress cannot be hijacked by inaction by any party" (and this is clearly aimed at the GNSO in this case). I would offer one: don't hijack ICANN's core process of working through its SOs and ACs towards the Board! I take your message to be a breach of that process and would personally appreciate reassurance from you that I am mistaken, and that is not what you intend.

In order to initiate possible discussion on this at both Council and Board level, I am copying the GNSO Council, Peter as Chairman of the Board and the two GNSO-elected Board members for their possible comments.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 14 juin 2011 à 01:33, Katim S. Touray a écrit :

Dear all,

Thanks so much for your invitation to the call. I certainly was looking forward to joining you on the call, but unfortunately, I have a serious conflict that only came up earlier today (Mon.) I am a consultant helping prepare a strategic action plan for our Fisheries Department in The Gambia, and we were in a workshop all day today discussing a draft plan I presented a few weeks back. We were hoping to go through the entire document today, but we could not. So we agreed to meet again tomorrow to complete our review of the draft document. For this reason, I will not be available to join the call tomorrow, and I am most disappointed by this.

Having said that, I hope you have a successful meeting tomorrow. In addition, I would like to say that I hope your recommendations receive the proper attention they deserve, and that in the end, needy new gTLD applicants get the support they need.

One issue I would like you to discuss on the call is the timeline for the finalization of the JAS WG report. While I agree that it will help to insist that the AG mention that needy applicants should seek support through the process based the JAS WG report, I think it will help to provide a timeline for the finalization of your report.

I'm also troubled by the fact that the GNSO has been rather slow in acting on the JAS WG reports. I fear such a situation might well be construed by many as an effort by the GNSO to scuttle the entire process of seeking ways and means to provide support to needy new gTLD applicants. One important product of such a perception would be that developing countries will feel that ICANN is not sincere when it says (as the Board did in Nairobi last year) that it is interested in launching an inclusive new gTLD program. I need not say that such a perception will also harm ICANN's efforts to strengthen relations with developing countries, and get them on our side on the many issues we'd like to have their support. For this reason, I would like hear what suggestions you have to the board to ensure that progress cannot be hijacked by inaction by any party.

Finally, let me say a big "Thank you!!" again to all of you for your tireless and selfless efforts on this matter. Again, I am very sorry I would not be able to join your call, and best wishes in your deliberations.

Have a great week, and safe travels to Singapore!

Sincerely,

Katim

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM, ICANN At-Large Staff < staff@atlarge.icann.org> wrote:

...

Dear All,

*The JAS Working Group Call with members of the Board, GAC and GNSO invited*, is scheduled on *Tuesday, 14 June 2001, at 13:00 UTC*. We hope you will be able to join us.

*PROPOSED AGENDA:*

- *Introduction* (5 to 10 minutes) Evan Leibovitch - Highlights Second Milestone Report covering short history how it was developed and specific summary points

- *Board/GAC questions/comments* (30 to 40 minutes) – JAS WG would like to listen to individual feedback and receive questions/suggestions from GAC and Board members

- *Singapore *(5 to 10 minutes) Rafik Dammak/Carlton Samuels – Should there be a public meeting with the JAS WG GAC/Board members during the Singapore ICANN Meeting?

As a reminder, it would help the JAS WG to better prepare if you could:

1. Advise on the representatives from the Board and GAC that will be able to attend the teleconference. 2. Send us any questions or comments on the Milestone Report in advance, if possible.

Kind regards,

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Dial-in details: Tuesday 14 June 2011 at 13:00 UTC*

For other places see:

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=JAS+WG&iso=20110607...

*ADOBE CONNECT:** **http://icann.adobeconnect.com/jas/* *Wiki Workspace:*

https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/SO-AC+New+gTLD+Applicant+Support+W...

*If you require a dial-out, please email staff@atlarge.icann.org with you preferred contact number.*

____________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: *JAS** * For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call.

____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number

ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA* 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702

*Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider.

Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.