Tim: I would like if you could clarify the sentence  "We could likely argue for weeks about the inaccuracy of some of the NCSG comments in blogs, etc. about contracted parties" . I consider necessary determinate in a clear way the names of NCSG`s, and facts wich you mention, because you can not involve every NCSG members on this. And when you say "some" unfortunatelly  you are mentioning to all. thanks


Carlos Dionisio Aguirre

NCA GNSO Council - ICANN
former ALAC member by LACRALO
Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
http://ar.ageiadensi.org




Subject: Re: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
To: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; KnobenW@telekom.de; william.drake@uzh.ch
CC: council@gnso.icann.org
From: tim@godaddy.com
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:29:28 +0000

If that is our duty we will have little time for anything else. We could likely argue for weeks about the inaccuracy of some of the NCSG comments in blogs, etc. about contracted parties. Fortunately, our charge is fairly simple, manage the policy process. Let's just stick to that, please.

Tim
From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>
Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 10:17:33 -0400
To: <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <KnobenW@telekom.de>; <william.drake@uzh.ch>
Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: RE: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report

Mary,

I agree and support your sentiments.

Debbie

Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel
American Red Cross
Office of the General Counsel 
2025 E Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 303-5356
Fax: (202) 303-0143
HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org

 

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:04 AM
To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; KnobenW@telekom.de; william.drake@uzh.ch
Cc: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re:: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report

 

As I'd indicated on the Council call, I believe it's our duty to correct factual misrepresentations that we know have taken place by/within the GNSO community. As such, I support sending the letter as Stephane now has it (i.e. including Bill's language).

 

I note also that neither this version nor my earlier attempts to achieve a similar result are "NCSG positions" as such, although I believe a number of other NCSG Councilors share my view.

 

As Jeff points out, we are not in a position to alter what ALAC/At Large did as part of their process. We are, however, obliged not to permit continued misperceptions about what happened to circulate amongst our community.

 

Cheers

Mary

 

Mary W S Wong

Professor of Law

Chair, Graduate IP Programs

Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

>>>

From:

<KnobenW@telekom.de>

To:

<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, <william.drake@uzh.ch>

CC:

<council@gnso.icann.org>

Date:

5/23/2011 9:10 AM

Subject:

AW: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report

Thanks both, Bill and Stéphane. I think this is acceptable.

 

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich

 

Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 14:27
An: William Drake
Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org
Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report

In the interest of clarity, I believe this is the excerpt from the blog post that Bill is referring to:

 

Support for Needy Applicants

  • ICANN is awaiting guidance from the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group who submitted their report directly to the Board over this past weekend. It's not clear why the GNSO was circumvented from the process, or how that will be addressed by the Board. While the ICANN Community all seem to agree there needs to be a mechanism for providing support to needy applicants, a workable solution needs to be found. I've not read the full report yet, but am hopeful.

 

 

And in the interest of consensus and moving ahead with this, Jeff or anyone else, is it really such a big problem to add Bill's sentence and send the message as suggested in my latest draft?

 

If we are worried about the fact that the Board could get the wrong idea about the report and not understand that it hasn't been approved yet, which is the rationale behind us working on this message in the first place, then it does not seem totally out of place to also address another misunderstanding that some worry might exist, does it?

 

Even if we don't all think the misunderstanding exists. Let's not forget that some of us didn't think that the first misunderstanding (about the Board not getting the fact that the report hasn't been approved) existed and yet, they still agreed to send the message.

 

So my suggestion is that the message as it currently stands incorporates all these varied POVs and allows us to move forwards.

 

Thanks,

 

Stéphane

 

 

 

Le 23 mai 2011 à 14:17, William Drake a écrit :



Hi Wolf-Ulrich

 

On May 23, 2011, at 2:03 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:



could you please provide me with the "false information circulated"? Sorry, I forget too many things.

 

I believe we discussed previously the fact that there were people running around saying that JAS had directly submitted its report to the Board in some sort of dastardly plot to circumvent the GNSO Council.  These rumblings were then put into words on a widely read blog http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110512_icann_tiptoes_through_political_minefield_new_tlds/ which prompted Alan and other JAS members to issue corrections.  I don't know whether those corrections have been widely read and internalized or if there are still people out there laboring under misunderstandings.  But I would think the Council would have a self-interest in stating for the record that the process was followed and it was not dissed.

 

Best,

 

Bill