+1 Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Tim Ruiz Gesendet: Freitag, 21. Januar 2011 15:28 An: stephane.vangelder@indom.com Cc: Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] JAS I agree with both ideas. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] JAS > From: Stéphane Van Gelder > Date: Fri, January 21, 2011 6:06 am > To: GNSO Council > Cc: Bruce Tonkin > > Councillors, > > Bruce and I have been discussing the JAS situation off list and he has a suggestion on another possible way forward we might consider. I would like to make it clear this is being presented in both Bruce and myself's personal capacity. This is just us brainstorming the issue, not suggesting ways forward as Board member and GNSO Chair. > > One thing the GNSO could look at is asking the JAS WG to work on topics of mutual interest or common ground as defined in the GNSO motion. ALAC could take items that are in addition back for their own internal discussion. They could then look at providing advice to the Board directly. > > As far as we are concerned, even though this is a CWG, it is still up to us as the GNSO to endorse those items we agree with and formally provide our recommendation to the Board. > > Also, to avoid confusion between use of the term working group within the GNSO procedures, maybe the joint SO/AC groups could be called "discussion forums". > > Thanks, > > Stéphane