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 <[log in to unmask]> > 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 <[log in to unmask]> > >> 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 > [log in to unmask] > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake > *********************************************************** >