Hi -
 
I share others' wishes that it be clear the GNSO Council, on behalf of the GNSO community, has not fully reviewed the JAS report and as such is not yet able to provide any advice or recommendations in that respect. If the note merely said that, I would feel much more comfortable; however, I have two concerns about sending it in its current form:
 
(1) To readers who may not know the scrupulous attention that Rafik and Carlton paid to both the time as well as the proper recipients of the group's report (as summarized by Alan in his last email), it could be interpreted as the Council disapproving of the circumstances of its receipt of the report.
 
(2) More than one Council member has raised questions about either the need or the speed of a Council note/response, and a vote has been requested. Doesn't this mean we need to have a vote (whether or not we may individually feel it is necessary)?
 
I also think the Council should expressly acknowledge that Rafik and Carlton as Co-Chairs definitely kept to the chartered process as to the submission of the report.
 
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: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>
CC: "council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Date: 5/11/2011 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board

Thanks Tim and Wolf for your comments.

The message as redrafted by Tim is clearly one that would be sent by me as Chair having identified what I think is information that the Board should have. The message contains no opinions, only statements of facts. It does not commit the Council in any direction, does not interfere with the work that the JAS has been tasked with doing, does not defend one position against another.

I would be happy to send such a reworded message, as I honestly believe there considering the way this report is being presented to the Board, it's best to ensure the information the Board has is as complete and unambiguous as possible.

However, I also do realise that this is an important topic for the NCSG. I am elected by all of you and do not wish for my personal actions to be considered by one group to be not taking sufficient account of their worries or issues.

Bill, you said in your last message that the NCSG did not oppose this, but would like to understand the value of doing this. I believe that this has already been answered. But perhaps the rationale I would have in sending the redrafted message Tim suggest as stated in the first part this email helps clarify further.

Please let me know what you, and other NCSG Councillors, think. You make the point that sending this message is useless because Olivier has already indicated in his message that the report hasn't been approved by the GNSO. I would ask you, even if that's the case and people felt confident that this message was stated clearly enough (which doesn't seem to be the case), what would be the harm in re-enphasising the same message? As long as the message itself doesn't change, and I am not saying anything different in my note, what would be the harm?

Thanks,

Stéphane



Le 11 mai 2011 à 15:15, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

> Looks good to me. If there is opposition to sending that message then I
> suggest a revised message like this:
>
> ----------
> The Board has received the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support
> Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report which was sent to it
> by ALAC. I understand that this report has not yet been approved by
> ALAC.
>
> I wish to highlight the fact that the GNSO Council has not approved this
> report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it.
>
> The GNSO is one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG and I
> am keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report
> that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it.
>
> I believe this report is for information purposes only and not intended
> to initiate any Board action at this time.
>
> I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey this message to the
> Board.
>
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> GNSO Council Chair
> ---------
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board
> From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
> Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 7:58 am
> To: "council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've tried to make a note of the comments so far and adapt my draft as
> required.
>
>
> I've taken the references to the dates out and added Wolf's suggested
> sentence.
>
>
> Please let me know what you think.
>
>
> Stéphane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> The Board has received the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support
> Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report which was sent to it
> by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by
> ALAC.
>
>
> The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved
> this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it.
>
>
> As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is
> keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that
> it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it.
>
>
> This report is for information purposes only and not intended to
> initiate any Board action at this time.
>
>
> I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's
> message to the Board.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> GNSO Council Chair
>