+ 1 Enviado desde mi dispositivo inalámbrico BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: SAMUELS Carlton A <carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:32:35 To: <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; <soac-newgtldapsup-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] [ALAC] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter Here is where I stand. The At-Large consensus that ICANN seek ways to enable effective participation of hitherto disadvantaged groups in the new gTLD economy is now an article of faith. It is critically important that this initiative is not reduced to a situation that is fashioned to appear as if it is about mendicants scavenging for bones. Or, crabs trying to escape the barrel with the familiar and predictable results. There are significant pockets in the ICANN community, who, from their postures and words, have messaged their interpretation: charity for the undeserving. We have our views on the politics of it. We are unanimous in dissent. I am disinclined to go back on the ALAC Charter because it reflects what I believe the At-Large community supports for this Applicant Support initiative. I do not believe that further attempts to harmonize the ALAC and Neumann-inspired GNSO charters will bear fruit. So be it. The At-Large community must move along and stick to its principles. Carlton From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:24 PM To: ALAC Working List Cc: JAS Subject: [ALAC] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter At its meeting today, the GNSO approved a new charter for the JAS group. This charter differs significantly from the one that was originally proposed to the GNSO and later approved by the ALAC at its November 2010 meeting. I have formatted both charters for a left-right comparison and it is attached. The ALAC must now decide which path to follow: 1. Adjust its charter to match the new GNSO one; or 2. Keep the existing charter or modify it somewhat. This would mean that the WG is working to two different charters simultaneously. I am not a fan of the new charter. I find it far too controlling and eliminates actions which the WG felt were important when the revised charter was first drafted. The vote for this charter was preceded by much discussion and a vote on the original charter as well as an amendment which would have significantly augmented the final version, both of which failed. The charter does include a specific item on IDN, an option that the WG had considered but later decided not to include. The final vote was very close, and nearly failed. A failure would have left the WG unchartered (un-re-chartered?) by the GNSO, a situation that would also have been difficult to handle. But for whatever reasons, we now have the two charters as shown in the attachment. Obviously (to me in any case), the ALAC should seek the thoughts of the WG members regarding how it should proceed. I also note that after the Cartagena meeting (where the GNSO had not approved the draft charter), there was a strong feeling within the WG that: - it had an expanded charter from the ALAC; - the original charter from the GNSO was thought be some to allow further work, even if not specified in detail; - work should proceed without delay. For reasons that I do not fully understand, that has not happened, and I do not believe that the group has met at all this year. Alan ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> > Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3379 - Release Date: 01/14/11 _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en