Carlos, Was referring to Avri's posts. Assumed those were general views of NCSG. Apologize if not. But my point about what the Council is supposed to be doing remains. Tim -----Original Message----- From: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:05:32 To: <tim@godaddy.com>; <hughesdeb@usa.redcross.org>; <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>; <mary.wong@law.unh.edu>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <knobenw@telekom.de>; william Drake<william.drake@uzh.ch> Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report 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 -0400To: <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_minef... 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