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
I do not believe option 2 will yield any real concrete results as like you say there is nothing in the bylaws that contemplates or discusses cross working groups. It would seem to me that a cross working group that operates under two separate charters ceases to be a cross working group and becomes two independent groups that may address some similar topics. I view number 1 as the only viable option if the nature of the cross working group is to survive here. However, I am not so sure that having 2 independent groups here is such a bad outcome. In my opinion, we cannot be bullied into accepting a charter proposed/adopted by another group when the charter approved by the other group addressing topics beyond the scope of the GNSO simply to keep the cross working group. That sets a really bad precedent. 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 Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:29 AM To: GNSO Council Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Subject: [council] JAS 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
There is an ALAC meeting next Tuesday (Jan 25) and I believe that the subject is scheduled to be discussed. There has been another option discussed within the WG and that is that the WG work on the union of the two charters and that in its report, it clearly state which recommendations fall under the GNSO charter or the ALAC charter or both. That way each organization can accept or reject the aspect of the report that falls under its own charter. Certainly not optimal, but perhaps viable if the WG is agreeable, and without the need to re-open the discussion within the GNSO. I suspect that Option 2 will yield the result "It is not forbidden by the Bylaws and so it is implicitly allowed." Alan At 19/01/2011 09:29 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
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
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Neuman, Jeff -
Stéphane Van Gelder