Councillors, Bruce and I have been discussing the JAS situation off list and he has a suggestion on another possible way forward we might consider. I would like to make it clear this is being presented in both Bruce and myself's personal capacity. This is just us brainstorming the issue, not suggesting ways forward as Board member and GNSO Chair. One thing the GNSO could look at is asking the JAS WG to work on topics of mutual interest or common ground as defined in the GNSO motion. ALAC could take items that are in addition back for their own internal discussion. They could then look at providing advice to the Board directly. As far as we are concerned, even though this is a CWG, it is still up to us as the GNSO to endorse those items we agree with and formally provide our recommendation to the Board. Also, to avoid confusion between use of the term working group within the GNSO procedures, maybe the joint SO/AC groups could be called "discussion forums". Thanks, Stéphane
Hi On Jan 21, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Councillors,
Bruce and I have been discussing the JAS situation off list and he has a suggestion on another possible way forward we might consider. I would like to make it clear this is being presented in both Bruce and myself's personal capacity. This is just us brainstorming the issue, not suggesting ways forward as Board member and GNSO Chair.
One thing the GNSO could look at is asking the JAS WG to work on topics of mutual interest or common ground as defined in the GNSO motion. ALAC could take items that are in addition back for their own internal discussion. They could then look at providing advice to the Board directly.
Alternatively, as Alan suggested, JAS could work on both and produce a report in which the two sets of issues and recs are clearly delineated and the Council considers adopting those under its charter.
As far as we are concerned, even though this is a CWG, it is still up to us as the GNSO to endorse those items we agree with and formally provide our recommendation to the Board.
Right, but does endorsing only those we agree with necessarily require that we try to go out and block colleagues in a CWG from working on those we don't? Also, as we go forward, can we please bear in mind that 12 Councilors voted against the JAS' version and 8 voted for it? And that the previous Council endorsed the JAS launch the board asked for, and that anyone who had issues with the direction of its work could have joined it to 'right' the course, etc? There are a diversity of views here, even if not everyone has the stomach to jump in and react to every ripe statement about JAS and the concerns it's trying to address.
Also, to avoid confusion between use of the term working group within the GNSO procedures, maybe the joint SO/AC groups could be called "discussion forums".
How about Council Uber Alles Forums? Not a great acronym but it'd capture the spirit of the thing. Bill
Bill, You are right to note the diversity of votes, but then end result is the motion the Council ended up passing. That is what we have to work with, not the previous motion. So if I summarize the current proposals, we can either ask the JAS WG to work with both charters and highlight which charter it is responding to, where, when it comes to draft its report. Or we can ask the WG to work on the base charter, and "add" the parts that ALAC agreed to. There are major differences in both approaches. Option 2 means the WG produces a report that the GNSO Council can endorse as-is. Option 1 may mean that the Council has to "pick and choose" which bits of the report it wants to endorse, and which it doesn't. Stéphane Le 21 janv. 2011 à 16:30, Drake William a écrit :
Hi
On Jan 21, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Councillors,
Bruce and I have been discussing the JAS situation off list and he has a suggestion on another possible way forward we might consider. I would like to make it clear this is being presented in both Bruce and myself's personal capacity. This is just us brainstorming the issue, not suggesting ways forward as Board member and GNSO Chair.
One thing the GNSO could look at is asking the JAS WG to work on topics of mutual interest or common ground as defined in the GNSO motion. ALAC could take items that are in addition back for their own internal discussion. They could then look at providing advice to the Board directly.
Alternatively, as Alan suggested, JAS could work on both and produce a report in which the two sets of issues and recs are clearly delineated and the Council considers adopting those under its charter.
As far as we are concerned, even though this is a CWG, it is still up to us as the GNSO to endorse those items we agree with and formally provide our recommendation to the Board.
Right, but does endorsing only those we agree with necessarily require that we try to go out and block colleagues in a CWG from working on those we don't?
Also, as we go forward, can we please bear in mind that 12 Councilors voted against the JAS' version and 8 voted for it? And that the previous Council endorsed the JAS launch the board asked for, and that anyone who had issues with the direction of its work could have joined it to 'right' the course, etc? There are a diversity of views here, even if not everyone has the stomach to jump in and react to every ripe statement about JAS and the concerns it's trying to address.
Also, to avoid confusion between use of the term working group within the GNSO procedures, maybe the joint SO/AC groups could be called "discussion forums".
How about Council Uber Alles Forums? Not a great acronym but it'd capture the spirit of the thing.
Bill
I support Option 1, and add for good measure that I agree with Bill and Alan. Bearing in mind that the JAS WG is a cross-community working group consisting of volunteers from within and outside the GNSO, I believe we can trust the WG to highlight the points of distinction as to where its recommendations are within or outside the GNSO charter. As such, I don't think the Council will have to do too much in terms of separating out the various parts; perhaps we can follow up with a note to the WG to request such delineation in their report. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To:Drake William <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> CC:GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org>, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Date: 1/21/2011 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [council] JAS Bill, You are right to note the diversity of votes, but then end result is the motion the Council ended up passing. That is what we have to work with, not the previous motion. So if I summarize the current proposals, we can either ask the JAS WG to work with both charters and highlight which charter it is responding to, where, when it comes to draft its report. Or we can ask the WG to work on the base charter, and "add" the parts that ALAC agreed to. There are major differences in both approaches. Option 2 means the WG produces a report that the GNSO Council can endorse as-is. Option 1 may mean that the Council has to "pick and choose" which bits of the report it wants to endorse, and which it doesn't. Stéphane Le 21 janv. 2011 à 16:30, Drake William a écrit :
Hi
On Jan 21, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Councillors,
Bruce and I have been discussing the JAS situation off list and he
has a suggestion on another possible way forward we might consider. I would like to make it clear this is being presented in both Bruce and myself's personal capacity. This is just us brainstorming the issue, not suggesting ways forward as Board member and GNSO Chair.
One thing the GNSO could look at is asking the JAS WG to work on
topics of mutual interest or common ground as defined in the GNSO motion. ALAC could take items that are in addition back for their own internal discussion. They could then look at providing advice to the Board directly.
Alternatively, as Alan suggested, JAS could work on both and produce a report in which the two sets of issues and recs are clearly delineated and the Council considers adopting those under its charter.
As far as we are concerned, even though this is a CWG, it is still
up to us as the GNSO to endorse those items we agree with and formally provide our recommendation to the Board.
Right, but does endorsing only those we agree with necessarily require that we try to go out and block colleagues in a CWG from working on those we don't?
Also, as we go forward, can we please bear in mind that 12 Councilors voted against the JAS' version and 8 voted for it? And that the previous Council endorsed the JAS launch the board asked for, and that anyone who had issues with the direction of its work could have joined it to 'right' the course, etc? There are a diversity of views here, even if not everyone has the stomach to jump in and react to every ripe statement about JAS and the concerns it's trying to address.
Also, to avoid confusion between use of the term working group
within the GNSO procedures, maybe the joint SO/AC groups could be called "discussion forums".
How about Council Uber Alles Forums? Not a great acronym but it'd capture the spirit of the thing.
Bill
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
At this stage, I do not believe that there is anyone on the WG who is not interested in working on the "additional" items, so having the ALAC "take them back" really means that the same WG participants will work on them, but with a WG name that is different and we will need to schedule different meetings. So why not just allow the single WG to work on the union of the two charters and report back, either with the recommendations flagged with respect to which AC/SO it is targeted at, or more awkwardly, produce two reports. Same net result with no artificial barriers. I am no longer on the ALAC and cannot speak on the ALAC's behalf, but I believe that this has good support in the ALAC. I am copying Olivier on this note. Alan At 21/01/2011 07:06 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Councillors,
Bruce and I have been discussing the JAS situation off list and he has a suggestion on another possible way forward we might consider. I would like to make it clear this is being presented in both Bruce and myself's personal capacity. This is just us brainstorming the issue, not suggesting ways forward as Board member and GNSO Chair.
One thing the GNSO could look at is asking the JAS WG to work on topics of mutual interest or common ground as defined in the GNSO motion. ALAC could take items that are in addition back for their own internal discussion. They could then look at providing advice to the Board directly.
As far as we are concerned, even though this is a CWG, it is still up to us as the GNSO to endorse those items we agree with and formally provide our recommendation to the Board.
Also, to avoid confusion between use of the term working group within the GNSO procedures, maybe the joint SO/AC groups could be called "discussion forums".
Thanks,
Stéphane
Sorry to sound overly formulistic here, but the GNSO Council cannot authorize work that exceeds its scope. Therefore, whether you call it a working group, discussion group, play group, study group or any other group, there are certain subjects that we the Council should not be acting on. If people want to get together on their own and discuss these items, then by all means (lest I be criticized of stifling speech), but in the end, the GNSO Council may only address those items within its scope. Things like discussing brokering arrangements between Registry front end and back-ends, establishing a foundation to give grants to TLD applicants, etc. are not GNSO items. They should not be delivered to the GNSO (as the GNSO) and should not be taken up by the GNSO. Of course that is only my opinion, but was the basis for my alternate motion. According to the Bylaws, "There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains." Many of the items in the original motion and the ALAC-approved charter do not relate to "substantive policies related to generic top-level domains." Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 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. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 12:44 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; GNSO Council Cc: Bruce Tonkin; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Subject: Re: [council] JAS At this stage, I do not believe that there is anyone on the WG who is not interested in working on the "additional" items, so having the ALAC "take them back" really means that the same WG participants will work on them, but with a WG name that is different and we will need to schedule different meetings. So why not just allow the single WG to work on the union of the two charters and report back, either with the recommendations flagged with respect to which AC/SO it is targeted at, or more awkwardly, produce two reports. Same net result with no artificial barriers. I am no longer on the ALAC and cannot speak on the ALAC's behalf, but I believe that this has good support in the ALAC. I am copying Olivier on this note. Alan At 21/01/2011 07:06 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Councillors,
Bruce and I have been discussing the JAS situation off list and he has a suggestion on another possible way forward we might consider. I would like to make it clear this is being presented in both Bruce and myself's personal capacity. This is just us brainstorming the issue, not suggesting ways forward as Board member and GNSO Chair.
One thing the GNSO could look at is asking the JAS WG to work on topics of mutual interest or common ground as defined in the GNSO motion. ALAC could take items that are in addition back for their own internal discussion. They could then look at providing advice to the Board directly.
As far as we are concerned, even though this is a CWG, it is still up to us as the GNSO to endorse those items we agree with and formally provide our recommendation to the Board.
Also, to avoid confusion between use of the term working group within the GNSO procedures, maybe the joint SO/AC groups could be called "discussion forums".
Thanks,
Stéphane
gNSO can authorize the space flight to the Mars if it will work for the good Board advice and budgeted. Board is not God, Bylaws are not sacred tablets, there are no internet gods around. What will happen if gNSO steps a little bit out of predefined little mind box? We all will be fired? :) I say nothing new. Again Council spends 90% of its time resolving procedural questions rather than stepping into the core. --andrei
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 8:59 PM To: Alan Greenberg; Stéphane Van Gelder; GNSO Council Cc: Bruce Tonkin; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Subject: RE: [council] JAS
Sorry to sound overly formulistic here, but the GNSO Council cannot authorize work that exceeds its scope. Therefore, whether you call it a working group, discussion group, play group, study group or any other group, there are certain subjects that we the Council should not be acting on. If people want to get together on their own and discuss these items, then by all means (lest I be criticized of stifling speech), but in the end, the GNSO Council may only address those items within its scope.
Things like discussing brokering arrangements between Registry front end and back-ends, establishing a foundation to give grants to TLD applicants, etc. are not GNSO items. They should not be delivered to the GNSO (as the GNSO) and should not be taken up by the GNSO. Of course that is only my opinion, but was the basis for my alternate motion. According to the Bylaws, "There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains."
Many of the items in the original motion and the ALAC-approved charter do not relate to "substantive policies related to generic top-level domains."
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
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.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 12:44 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; GNSO Council Cc: Bruce Tonkin; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Subject: Re: [council] JAS
At this stage, I do not believe that there is anyone on the WG who is not interested in working on the "additional" items, so having the ALAC "take them back" really means that the same WG participants will work on them, but with a WG name that is different and we will need to schedule different meetings.
So why not just allow the single WG to work on the union of the two charters and report back, either with the recommendations flagged with respect to which AC/SO it is targeted at, or more awkwardly, produce two reports. Same net result with no artificial barriers.
I am no longer on the ALAC and cannot speak on the ALAC's behalf, but I believe that this has good support in the ALAC. I am copying Olivier on this note.
Alan
At 21/01/2011 07:06 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Councillors,
Bruce and I have been discussing the JAS situation off list and he has a suggestion on another possible way forward we might consider. I would like to make it clear this is being presented in both Bruce and myself's personal capacity. This is just us brainstorming the issue, not suggesting ways forward as Board member and GNSO Chair.
One thing the GNSO could look at is asking the JAS WG to work on topics of mutual interest or common ground as defined in the GNSO motion. ALAC could take items that are in addition back for their own internal discussion. They could then look at providing advice to the Board directly.
As far as we are concerned, even though this is a CWG, it is still up to us as the GNSO to endorse those items we agree with and formally provide our recommendation to the Board.
Also, to avoid confusion between use of the term working group within the GNSO procedures, maybe the joint SO/AC groups could be called "discussion forums".
Thanks,
Stéphane
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrei Kolesnikov -
Drake William -
Mary Wong -
Neuman, Jeff -
Stéphane Van Gelder