New ATRT issue.

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi,

Cheryl contacted Chuck and Heather for that, he passed her request to the
council :
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/arch<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09688.html>
council
confcall. as GNSO liaison for JAS WG, I already confirmed that was request
from WG on that matter. but as Bill said the case can be generalizable for
other WG.


Regards

Rafik


2010/10/6 William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>

> Avri,
>
> Thanks for sending. As I said, I'd be happy to raise this on the Council
> call tomorrow, but wonder what people think would be the most effective way
> of doing so given that it's too late for a motion.  Hitting the right notes
> with other SGs that might agree on the process concern at least would seem
> important.  And with respect to applicant support, Evan in ALAC is
> requesting "a full and accurate transcript of the staff report to the Board
> retreat on this issue, as well as any related presentations and background
> materials."  The point is generalizable; maybe we should do some quick
> coordination with ALAC on this?  Didn't you say they had some language
> written?
>
> Hope we'll have people listening in and participating in the Skype on the
> side during the call to pass along their input etc...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2010, at 8:52 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > At today's meeting I was asked to forward this message to our discuss
> list.
> >
> > As I said I was informed by Berkman that:  " our work is constrained to
> activity before June 17, 2010."  They offered to forward it to the ATRT, and
> I assume they did.
> >
> > In the note, the conversation refered to in the first paragragh, was a
> general interview with them on the ATRT issues.
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> >> From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> >> Date: 28 September 2010 11:42:02 EDT
> >> Subject: New ATRT issue.
> >>
> >> To the reviewers,
> >>
> >> Once again,  I want to thank you for the tone and receptiveness of our
> call. I enjoyed the conversation very much.
> >>
> >> I do not know whether you are open for one more topic, but a recent
> event needs to be included in the ATRT review.  I am sure you will be
> receiving various inputs on this issue in the next few days and wanted to
> add my voice to that issue.
> >>
> >> Just last week, the Board held a retreat where they made decisions of
> various issues concerning the  gTLD program.  The first thing that was
> unusual about this  meeting was that it had been specifically advertised as
> a non decision making meeting.  More disturbing than that, however, was the
> way in which the advice sent to the Board by several Board initiated working
> groups was ignored during that meeting.  I expect you will be hearing from
> others involved in the other groups.
> >>
> >> I am currently the co-chair of a group responsible for making
> recommendations on financial and other support for new gTLD applicants who
> do not have the financial means to afford the currently defined ICANN
> pricing (Joint ALAC/GNSO WG on applicant support for new gTLDs aka JAS) .
>  This group was founded based on an ICANN Board resolution made at the
> Nairobi meeting.  This group sent the Board a summary of our  draft
> recommendations in time for their meeting (though a few days late an
> extension had been cleared with the Board chair).
> >>
> >> I understand the Board's right to deny community recommendations based
> on their fiduciary responsibilities to the corporation.  What I question is
> the basis on which they denied these recommendations.
> >>
> >> Some of the specific issues I, and much of the WG*, have are:
> >>
> >> - We do not know whether the Board considered our proposal directly or
> whether it was filtered thorugh a staff presentation.  If filtered, we do
> not know whether that presentation gave an adequate and fair representation
> of the proposal.
> >>
> >> - We do not know what recommendation staff may have made, if any, about
> our work.   If the staff did make specific recommendations we do not know
> what they were and have not been given any opportunity to repsond to any
> issues they may have presented.
> >>
> >> - We do not know what the votes of the individual Board members were in
> making its decision.  We also do not know the basis of  any of the
> individual Board members for their vote.
> >>
> >> It is my opinion that this is an egregious violation of ICANN's
> Accountability and Transparency standards and something that should be
> reported on and discussed by the ATRT.
> >>
> >> The WG chairs have made a formal request to the staff requesting copies
> of their presentation to the Board, i.e. asking for the Board Book on this
> subject.  We will also be sending a specific request to the ATRT regarding
> the release of information regarding this event.
> >>
> >> Please feel free to contact me for any clarification or for further
> information on this issue.
> >>
> >> Again, thanks and best regards,
> >>
> >> Avri Doria
> >>
> >> Note: this communication is quotable.  I do not consider any part of it
> confidential.
> >>
> >>
> >> * We will be taking a poll on a WG statement, but that will take several
> days to complete.  Hence this is just my opinion about the level of
> agreement in the JAS WAG
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
> ***********************************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20101006/ba5864ca/attachment-0001.html>