Fw: Fwd: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [council] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations of its Charter
Fyi, I received this from Olivier this morning and not sure he can publish to the Council list. I will separately post a response. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Vice President, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 05:39 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>; ALAC EXCOM <alac-excom@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org>; Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [council] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations of its Charter Dear Jeff, I am in receipt of the message you have sent to the GNSO council (quoted below) concerning the JAS working group alleged violation of its charter. Whilst I agree with your comments that the JAS working group has no business reporting directly to the Board without the authority of the GNSO council or the ALAC, I disagree with your conclusions which paint a completely incorrect picture of the JAS WG discussions. Unless any of the two co-Chairs, Rafik Dammak and Carlton Samuels, have made an announcement in the last few minutes, there has been no consensus decision that the JAS Working Group would provide direct input to the ICANN Board without consultations with either the GNSO or the ALAC. Similarly, I have seen no proof whatsoever that a consensus decision has been made for the JAS Working Group to deliver its final report in May directly to the Board. Rather, a demand has been expressed by a *staff member*, relaying an unsubstantiated demand from the Board for a report to be sent to them by the end of this week. It appears that this was actually not a specific demand, but an extrapolation made from a need for all input for the GAC scorecard to be examined by the Board, to be "in" by this Friday. I am yet to understand what is fact and fiction, and after questioning the source of this alleged "demand", have disappointingly received no reply to substantiate any "demand" from the Board. This "demand" was then conveyed and expanded by one of the normal members of the working group. That member has, at no time, purported to act in any official capacity, and has acted out of their own initiative to make progress in writing such a report - forgetting about due process and about the fact that neither of the Chairs of the Working Group had ever received a demand for an interim report. In other words, this is a non-event, until a formal demand is made by the Board. The JAS Working Group might choose to file an interim status report with the GNSO & ALAC and either (or both) might choose to convey it to the Board. At this point in time, neither is obliged to do so. Finally, I deplore your allegation of "failure of the cross working group model". Jeff, you are jumping to conclusions based on incorrect allegations and IMHO this is not productive. If my message has not made it to the GNSO Council list, I should be grateful of you could please be so kind to forward it there to set the facts straight. Warm regards, Olivier Crépin-Leblond (speaking in my personal capacity since I have not had the time to consult the ALAC due to time pressures) From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> To: "council@gnso.icann.org"<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> <council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:12:51 -0400 Subject: [council] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations of its Charter All, I wanted to bring to the Council’s attention a discussion on the JAS Working Group list which is concerning to me because the conversation by both the Working Group and ICANN staff, and the planned action items, are in direct contravention to the approved JAS Working Group Charter. Bottom line is that the JAS Working Group is not only providing direct input to the ICANN Board without consultations with the GNSO (or even the ALAC), but the JAS Working Group is also planning on delivering its final report in May directly to the ICANN Board without “the input and consideration by the respective supporting organizations (GNSO and ALAC).” I believe the Council must take immediate action in order to enforce the Charter we have all approved. To fail to do so would be an abdication of our responsibilities and more importantly, would constitute a complete failure of the bottom-up policy process. On January 13, 2011, the GNSO Council approved a “Joint SO/AC Working Group on support for new gTLD applicants (JAS)” that included the following provisions: “3. The Working group shall report its results and present a final report directly to the GNSO Council and the ALAC for discussion and adoption, as appropriate, according to their own rules and procedures. 4. All communication to the ICANN Board regarding the work of this Working Group shall be through the respective SO/AC unless expressly approved by the respective SO/AC.” See https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/Charter+as+approved+by+the+GNSO+Co... . Despite the clear words of the Charter to “report its results and present a final report to the GNSO Council” and to ensure that “All communication to the ICANN Board regarding the work of this Working Group shall be through the respective SO/AC”, the JAS working group on its own initiative (and with some help from ICANN staff) is going in the complete opposite direction. On the JAS mailing list on April 12th, in a post from Avri Doria to the JAS Group, in referring to criteria for a fee waiver program, the following was stated: “We have a requirement to give the Board a draft on Friday, and the work currently being done is not close to being ready on this issue.” See http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg01378.html . More discussion took place between the working group about this report to be delivered not to the GNSO (or ALAC), but directly to the ICANN Board. In a subsequent post from Karla Valente (ICANN staff) to the Working Group entitled “call today and summary for the Board”, the following was stated: “Please know that I conveyed to Peter and Kurt that there will be a summary for the Board by Friday AND that the work done by Friday will not be the actual "Final Report", which is scheduled to be ready for end of May. I also added that this summary, due to time constrains [sp.], will not have the input and consideration by the respective supporting organizations (GNSO and ALAC). http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg01381.html” I am requesting that this formally be added to our agenda for April 28th and request that until that time no summary of work be provided by the JAS working group to the Board without review by the GNSO. This again shows the failure of the cross working group model and the lack of recognition that persons participating in working groups are there in their own individual capacities and not on behalf of their constituency, stakeholder group, advisory committee or even the GNSO. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> Please note new address starting March 21, 2011: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166 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.
Thanks Jeff for forwarding this. Olivier's email raises concerns as it would seem to confirm there is a lack of clarity in the way the JAS group has been functioning. On a personal level, I am especially worried to read that a "staff member has relayed an unsubstantiated demand from the Board" and that as a result, a member of the group acting of his own accord has prepared a draft report. The worries that some on this Council have expressed about the way joint groups work and the risk of seeing them step outside the bounds of the Bottom-up Policy Development Process are clearly real in this context. Further to the email I have just sent, I would suggest that this situation does indeed warrant us sending a message to the JAS group to enquire about this situation. Thoughts? Stéphane Le 13 avr. 2011 à 13:19, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
Fyi, I received this from Olivier this morning and not sure he can publish to the Council list.
I will separately post a response.
Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Vice President, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 05:39 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>; ALAC EXCOM <alac-excom@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org>; Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [council] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations of its Charter
Dear Jeff,
I am in receipt of the message you have sent to the GNSO council (quoted below) concerning the JAS working group alleged violation of its charter. Whilst I agree with your comments that the JAS working group has no business reporting directly to the Board without the authority of the GNSO council or the ALAC, I disagree with your conclusions which paint a completely incorrect picture of the JAS WG discussions.
Unless any of the two co-Chairs, Rafik Dammak and Carlton Samuels, have made an announcement in the last few minutes, there has been no consensus decision that the JAS Working Group would provide direct input to the ICANN Board without consultations with either the GNSO or the ALAC. Similarly, I have seen no proof whatsoever that a consensus decision has been made for the JAS Working Group to deliver its final report in May directly to the Board.
Rather, a demand has been expressed by a *staff member*, relaying an unsubstantiated demand from the Board for a report to be sent to them by the end of this week. It appears that this was actually not a specific demand, but an extrapolation made from a need for all input for the GAC scorecard to be examined by the Board, to be "in" by this Friday. I am yet to understand what is fact and fiction, and after questioning the source of this alleged "demand", have disappointingly received no reply to substantiate any "demand" from the Board.
This "demand" was then conveyed and expanded by one of the normal members of the working group. That member has, at no time, purported to act in any official capacity, and has acted out of their own initiative to make progress in writing such a report - forgetting about due process and about the fact that neither of the Chairs of the Working Group had ever received a demand for an interim report.
In other words, this is a non-event, until a formal demand is made by the Board. The JAS Working Group might choose to file an interim status report with the GNSO & ALAC and either (or both) might choose to convey it to the Board. At this point in time, neither is obliged to do so.
Finally, I deplore your allegation of "failure of the cross working group model". Jeff, you are jumping to conclusions based on incorrect allegations and IMHO this is not productive. If my message has not made it to the GNSO Council list, I should be grateful of you could please be so kind to forward it there to set the facts straight.
Warm regards,
Olivier Crépin-Leblond (speaking in my personal capacity since I have not had the time to consult the ALAC due to time pressures)
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:12:51 -0400 Subject: [council] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations of its Charter
All,
I wanted to bring to the Council’s attention a discussion on the JAS Working Group list which is concerning to me because the conversation by both the Working Group and ICANN staff, and the planned action items, are in direct contravention to the approved JAS Working Group Charter. Bottom line is that the JAS Working Group is not only providing direct input to the ICANN Board without consultations with the GNSO (or even the ALAC), but the JAS Working Group is also planning on delivering its final report in May directly to the ICANN Board without “the input and consideration by the respective supporting organizations (GNSO and ALAC).” I believe the Council must take immediate action in order to enforce the Charter we have all approved. To fail to do so would be an abdication of our responsibilities and more importantly, would constitute a complete failure of the bottom-up policy process.
On January 13, 2011, the GNSO Council approved a “Joint SO/AC Working Group on support for new gTLD applicants (JAS)” that included the following provisions: “3. The Working group shall report its results and present a final report directly to the GNSO Council and the ALAC for discussion and adoption, as appropriate, according to their own rules and procedures. 4. All communication to the ICANN Board regarding the work of this Working Group shall be through the respective SO/AC unless expressly approved by the respective SO/AC.” See https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/Charter+as+approved+by+the+GNSO+Co... .
Despite the clear words of the Charter to “report its results and present a final report to the GNSO Council” and to ensure that “All communication to the ICANN Board regarding the work of this Working Group shall be through the respective SO/AC”, the JAS working group on its own initiative (and with some help from ICANN staff) is going in the complete opposite direction.
On the JAS mailing list on April 12th, in a post from Avri Doria to the JAS Group, in referring to criteria for a fee waiver program, the following was stated:
“We have a requirement to give the Board a draft on Friday, and the work currently being done is not close to being ready on this issue.” See
http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg01378.html . More discussion took place between the working group about this report to be delivered not to the GNSO (or ALAC), but directly to the ICANN Board.
In a subsequent post from Karla Valente (ICANN staff) to the Working Group entitled “call today and summary for the Board”, the following was stated:
“Please know that I conveyed to Peter and Kurt that there will be a summary for the Board by Friday AND that the work done by Friday will not be the actual "Final Report", which is scheduled to be ready
for end of May. I also added that this summary, due to time constrains [sp.], will not have the input and consideration by the respective supporting organizations (GNSO and ALAC).
http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg01381.html”
I am requesting that this formally be added to our agenda for April 28th and request that until that time no summary of work be provided by the JAS working group to the Board without review by the GNSO. This again shows the failure of the cross working group model and the lack of recognition that persons participating in working groups are there in their own individual capacities and not on behalf of their constituency, stakeholder group, advisory committee or even the GNSO.
Best regards,
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz Please note new address starting March 21, 2011: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166
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.
The worries that some on this Council have expressed about the way joint groups work and the risk of seeing them step outside the bounds of the Bottom-up Policy Development Process are clearly real in this context.
the irony is to talk about Bottom-up PDP which is in the meantime hurt by the attempt of micromanagement I am observing from some in GNSO council . Rafik
participants (3)
-
Neuman, Jeff -
Rafik Dammak -
Stéphane Van Gelder