RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
One more vote for B Berard
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 9:23 am To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Cc: "'tim@godaddy.com'" <tim@godaddy.com>, "'owner-council@gnso.icann.org'" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>, "'council@gnso.icann.org'" <council@gnso.icann.org>
So that's one vote for version B, right?
Stéphane
Le 17 mai 2011 à 17:54, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
Unfortunately, I cannot commit on behalf of the rysg to that last sentence on "observance" and would prefer its deletion since on our last rysg call questions were raised and I am not sure it adds to the substance of the note.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:43 AM To: tim@godaddy.com
Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org ; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Thanks Tim, Jeff, Mary and Alan,
This would be the proposed message then. Either (I call this version A):
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the GNSO-chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review. I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
Or (this my version B):
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
As Olga had requested a vote, I would like to suggest that we give ourselves until Thursday's meeting to vote by return email to the list on either version A or B, and whichever has the most votes is the one I send.
Is that acceptable to everyone?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 17 mai 2011 à 14:12, tim@godaddy.com a écrit : No objection if you remove the last sentence. There is no chartering process for CWGs. The ALAC and GNSO could not even agree on what the charter should be. And at least a few of us have concerns about how and why CWGs are being formed.
Tim From: Stéphane Van Gelder
Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:45:21 +0200 To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Councillors,
Please find below the NCSG's suggestion on a message which I could send to the Chairman of the Board in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO.
Thanks Mary for providing this draft.
Please let me have your comments.
Stéphane
Le 14 mai 2011 à 16:31, a écrit :
Hi - sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the Council letter; there has been some lively discussion among some NCSG folks about it. We suggest the following draft: Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review. I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder
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
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond , Council GNSO
Date: 5/14/2011 5:18 AM
Subject: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone ReportThanks Olivier.
GNSO Council, FYI.
A good weekend to all.
Stéphane
Le 14 mai 2011 à 11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit :
Dear Stéphane,
please find enclosed, a copy of our follow-up message to the Board including ALAC comments. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any query about its contents. Have a good week-end! Kind regards,
Olivier
-------- Message original --------
Sujet: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Date : Fri, 13 May 2011 20:26:34 -0700
De : ICANN At-Large Staff
Pour : Secretary
Copie à : ocl@gih.com , carlton.samuels@gmail.com , rafik.dammak@gmail.com , ICANN At-Large Staff
Dear all,
The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC):
The Second Milestone Report of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG), with a revised ALAC introduction (entitled �Status of this Document�); and The Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report.
We request that these documents (attached here) be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Board.
The Second Milestone Report was received by the ALAC and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 7 May 2011. Then, the At-Large staff, on behalf of the ALAC, initially forwarded this Report to the Board on 9 May 2011. Please note that the Report itself has not been substantively changed since the Board initially received it on 9 May.
During the period 7�13 May, comments on the Report were collected from the At-Large Community. These comments are the basis for the Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report attached here.
The ALAC ratification process for the Second Milestone Report and the ALAC Statement will begin on 14 May, and the results will be forwarded to the Board. Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted independently and has not reached the approval stage.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and Marilyn Vernon ICANN At-Large Staff
email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org
Dear friends, I still don't understand why we spending time around this letter instead of simple and short email Stephane to Peter saying "FYI Board, the JAS report is not adopted yet by gNSO Council" - that's it. --andrei From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of john@crediblecontext.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 9:22 PM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com Cc: tim@godaddy.com; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us Subject: RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report One more vote for B Berard
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report From: Stéphane Van Gelder Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 9:23 am To: "Neuman, Jeff" Cc: "'tim@godaddy.com'" , "'owner-council@gnso.icann.org'" , "'council@gnso.icann.org'"
So that's one vote for version B, right?
Stéphane
Le 17 mai 2011 à 17:54, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
Unfortunately, I cannot commit on behalf of the rysg to that last sentence on "observance" and would prefer its deletion since on our last rysg call questions were raised and I am not sure it adds to the substance of the note.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:43 AM To: tim@godaddy.com
Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org ; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Thanks Tim, Jeff, Mary and Alan,
This would be the proposed message then. Either (I call this version A):
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the GNSO-chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
Or (this my version B):
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
As Olga had requested a vote, I would like to suggest that we give ourselves until Thursday's meeting to vote by return email to the list on either version A or B, and whichever has the most votes is the one I send.
Is that acceptable to everyone?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 17 mai 2011 à 14:12, tim@godaddy.com a écrit : No objection if you remove the last sentence. There is no chartering process for CWGs. The ALAC and GNSO could not even agree on what the charter should be. And at least a few of us have concerns about how and why CWGs are being formed.
Tim From: Stéphane Van Gelder
Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:45:21 +0200 To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Councillors,
Please find below the NCSG's suggestion on a message which I could send to the Chairman of the Board in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO.
Thanks Mary for providing this draft.
Please let me have your comments.
Stéphane
Le 14 mai 2011 à 16:31, a écrit :
Hi - sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the Council letter; there has been some lively discussion among some NCSG folks about it.
We suggest the following draft:
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder
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
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond , Council GNSO
Date: 5/14/2011 5:18 AM
Subject: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone ReportThanks Olivier.
GNSO Council, FYI.
A good weekend to all.
Stéphane
Le 14 mai 2011 à 11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit :
Dear Stéphane,
please find enclosed, a copy of our follow-up message to the Board including ALAC comments. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any query about its contents. Have a good week-end! Kind regards,
Olivier
-------- Message original --------
Sujet: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Date : Fri, 13 May 2011 20:26:34 -0700
De : ICANN At-Large Staff
Pour : Secretary
Copie à : ocl@gih.com , carlton.samuels@gmail.com , rafik.dammak@gmail.com , ICANN At-Large Staff
Dear all,
The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC):
The Second Milestone Report of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG), with a revised ALAC introduction (entitled �Status of this Document�); and The Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report.
We request that these documents (attached here) be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Board.
The Second Milestone Report was received by the ALAC and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 7 May 2011. Then, the At-Large staff, on behalf of the ALAC, initially forwarded this Report to the Board on 9 May 2011. Please note that the Report itself has not been substantively changed since the Board initially received it on 9 May.
During the period 7�13 May, comments on the Report were collected from the At-Large Community. These comments are the basis for the Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report attached here.
The ALAC ratification process for the Second Milestone Report and the ALAC Statement will begin on 14 May, and the results will be forwarded to the Board.
Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted independently and has not reached the approval stage.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and Marilyn Vernon ICANN At-Large Staff
email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org
and another one. K ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of john@crediblecontext.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:22 PM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com Cc: tim@godaddy.com; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us Subject: RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report One more vote for B Berard
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report From: Stéphane Van Gelder Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 9:23 am To: "Neuman, Jeff" Cc: "'tim@godaddy.com'" , "'owner-council@gnso.icann.org'" , "'council@gnso.icann.org'"
So that's one vote for version B, right?
Stéphane
Le 17 mai 2011 à 17:54, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
Unfortunately, I cannot commit on behalf of the rysg to that last sentence on "observance" and would prefer its deletion since on our last rysg call questions were raised and I am not sure it adds to the substance of the note.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:43 AM To: tim@godaddy.com
Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org ; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Thanks Tim, Jeff, Mary and Alan,
This would be the proposed message then. Either (I call this version A):
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the GNSO-chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
Or (this my version B):
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
As Olga had requested a vote, I would like to suggest that we give ourselves until Thursday's meeting to vote by return email to the list on either version A or B, and whichever has the most votes is the one I send.
Is that acceptable to everyone?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 17 mai 2011 à 14:12, tim@godaddy.com a écrit : No objection if you remove the last sentence. There is no chartering process for CWGs. The ALAC and GNSO could not even agree on what the charter should be. And at least a few of us have concerns about how and why CWGs are being formed.
Tim From: Stéphane Van Gelder
Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:45:21 +0200 To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Councillors,
Please find below the NCSG's suggestion on a message which I could send to the Chairman of the Board in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO.
Thanks Mary for providing this draft.
Please let me have your comments.
Stéphane
Le 14 mai 2011 à 16:31, a écrit :
Hi - sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the Council letter; there has been some lively discussion among some NCSG folks about it.
We suggest the following draft:
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder
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
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond , Council GNSO
Date: 5/14/2011 5:18 AM
Subject: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone ReportThanks Olivier.
GNSO Council, FYI.
A good weekend to all.
Stéphane
Le 14 mai 2011 à 11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit :
Dear Stéphane,
please find enclosed, a copy of our follow-up message to the Board including ALAC comments. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any query about its contents. Have a good week-end! Kind regards,
Olivier
-------- Message original --------
Sujet: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Date : Fri, 13 May 2011 20:26:34 -0700
De : ICANN At-Large Staff
Pour : Secretary
Copie à : ocl@gih.com , carlton.samuels@gmail.com , rafik.dammak@gmail.com , ICANN At-Large Staff
Dear all,
The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC):
The Second Milestone Report of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG), with a revised ALAC introduction (entitled �Status of this Document�); and The Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report.
We request that these documents (attached here) be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Board.
The Second Milestone Report was received by the ALAC and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 7 May 2011. Then, the At-Large staff, on behalf of the ALAC, initially forwarded this Report to the Board on 9 May 2011. Please note that the Report itself has not been substantively changed since the Board initially received it on 9 May.
During the period 7�13 May, comments on the Report were collected from the At-Large Community. These comments are the basis for the Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report attached here.
The ALAC ratification process for the Second Milestone Report and the ALAC Statement will begin on 14 May, and the results will be forwarded to the Board.
Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted independently and has not reached the approval stage.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and Marilyn Vernon ICANN At-Large Staff
email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org
And here's one for A Bill On May 19, 2011, at 5:16 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
and another one.
K
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of john@crediblecontext.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:22 PM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com Cc: tim@godaddy.com; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us Subject: RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
One more vote for B
Berard
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report From: Stéphane Van Gelder Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 9:23 am To: "Neuman, Jeff" Cc: "'tim@godaddy.com'" , "'owner-council@gnso.icann.org'" , "'council@gnso.icann.org'"
So that's one vote for version B, right?
Stéphane
Le 17 mai 2011 à 17:54, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
Unfortunately, I cannot commit on behalf of the rysg to that last sentence on "observance" and would prefer its deletion since on our last rysg call questions were raised and I am not sure it adds to the substance of the note.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:43 AM To: tim@godaddy.com
Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org ; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Thanks Tim, Jeff, Mary and Alan,
This would be the proposed message then. Either (I call this version A):
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the GNSO-chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
Or (this my version B):
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
As Olga had requested a vote, I would like to suggest that we give ourselves until Thursday's meeting to vote by return email to the list on either version A or B, and whichever has the most votes is the one I send.
Is that acceptable to everyone?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 17 mai 2011 à 14:12, tim@godaddy.com a écrit : No objection if you remove the last sentence. There is no chartering process for CWGs. The ALAC and GNSO could not even agree on what the charter should be. And at least a few of us have concerns about how and why CWGs are being formed.
Tim From: Stéphane Van Gelder
Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:45:21 +0200 To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Councillors,
Please find below the NCSG's suggestion on a message which I could send to the Chairman of the Board in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO.
Thanks Mary for providing this draft.
Please let me have your comments.
Stéphane
Le 14 mai 2011 à 16:31, a écrit :
Hi - sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the Council letter; there has been some lively discussion among some NCSG folks about it.
We suggest the following draft:
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder
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
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond , Council GNSO
Date: 5/14/2011 5:18 AM
Subject: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone ReportThanks Olivier.
GNSO Council, FYI.
A good weekend to all.
Stéphane
Le 14 mai 2011 à 11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit :
Dear Stéphane,
please find enclosed, a copy of our follow-up message to the Board including ALAC comments. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any query about its contents. Have a good week-end! Kind regards,
Olivier
-------- Message original --------
Sujet: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Date : Fri, 13 May 2011 20:26:34 -0700
De : ICANN At-Large Staff
Pour : Secretary
Copie à : ocl@gih.com , carlton.samuels@gmail.com , rafik.dammak@gmail.com , ICANN At-Large Staff
Dear all,
The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC):
The Second Milestone Report of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG), with a revised ALAC introduction (entitled �Status of this Document�); and The Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report.
We request that these documents (attached here) be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Board.
The Second Milestone Report was received by the ALAC and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 7 May 2011. Then, the At-Large staff, on behalf of the ALAC, initially forwarded this Report to the Board on 9 May 2011. Please note that the Report itself has not been substantively changed since the Board initially received it on 9 May.
During the period 7�13 May, comments on the Report were collected from the At-Large Community. These comments are the basis for the Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report attached here.
The ALAC ratification process for the Second Milestone Report and the ALAC Statement will begin on 14 May, and the results will be forwarded to the Board.
Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted independently and has not reached the approval stage.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and Marilyn Vernon ICANN At-Large Staff
email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org
hard choice but definitely vote for A ;) Regards Rafik 2011/5/19 William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch>
And here's one for A
Bill
On May 19, 2011, at 5:16 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
and another one.
K
------------------------------ *From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *john@crediblecontext.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:22 PM *To:* stephane.vangelder@indom.com *Cc:* tim@godaddy.com; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us *Subject:* RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
One more vote for B
Berard
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report From: Stéphane Van Gelder Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 9:23 am To: "Neuman, Jeff" Cc: "'tim@godaddy.com'" , "'owner-council@gnso.icann.org'" , "'council@gnso.icann.org'"
So that's one vote for version B, right?
Stéphane
Le 17 mai 2011 à 17:54, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
Unfortunately, I cannot commit on behalf of the rysg to that last sentence on "observance" and would prefer its deletion since on our last rysg call questions were raised and I am not sure it adds to the substance of the note.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:43 AM To: tim@godaddy.com
Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org ; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Thanks Tim, Jeff, Mary and Alan,
This would be the proposed message then. Either (I call this version A):
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the GNSO-chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
Or (this my version B):
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
As Olga had requested a vote, I would like to suggest that we give ourselves until Thursday's meeting to vote by return email to the list on either version A or B, and whichever has the most votes is the one I send.
Is that acceptable to everyone?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 17 mai 2011 à 14:12, tim@godaddy.com a écrit : No objection if you remove the last sentence. There is no chartering process for CWGs. The ALAC and GNSO could not even agree on what the charter should be. And at least a few of us have concerns about how and why CWGs are being formed.
Tim From: Stéphane Van Gelder
Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:45:21 +0200 To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Councillors,
Please find below the NCSG's suggestion on a message which I could send to the Chairman of the Board in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO.
Thanks Mary for providing this draft.
Please let me have your comments.
Stéphane
Le 14 mai 2011 à 16:31, a écrit :
Hi - sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the Council letter; there has been some lively discussion among some NCSG folks about it.
We suggest the following draft:
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder
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
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond , Council GNSO
Date: 5/14/2011 5:18 AM
Subject: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone ReportThanks Olivier.
GNSO Council, FYI.
A good weekend to all.
Stéphane
Le 14 mai 2011 à 11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit :
Dear Stéphane,
please find enclosed, a copy of our follow-up message to the Board including ALAC comments. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any query about its contents. Have a good week-end! Kind regards,
Olivier
-------- Message original --------
Sujet: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Date : Fri, 13 May 2011 20:26:34 -0700
De : ICANN At-Large Staff
Pour : Secretary
Copie à : ocl@gih.com , carlton.samuels@gmail.com , rafik.dammak@gmail.com , ICANN At-Large Staff
Dear all,
The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC):
The Second Milestone Report of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG), with a revised ALAC introduction (entitled �Status of this Document�); and The Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report.
We request that these documents (attached here) be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Board.
The Second Milestone Report was received by the ALAC and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 7 May 2011. Then, the At-Large staff, on behalf of the ALAC, initially forwarded this Report to the Board on 9 May 2011. Please note that the Report itself has not been substantively changed since the Board initially received it on 9 May.
During the period 7�13 May, comments on the Report were collected from the At-Large Community. These comments are the basis for the Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report attached here.
The ALAC ratification process for the Second Milestone Report and the ALAC Statement will begin on 14 May, and the results will be forwarded to the Board.
Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted independently and has not reached the approval stage.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and Marilyn Vernon ICANN At-Large Staff
email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org
vote for B. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Rafik Dammak Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Mai 2011 12:40 An: William Drake Cc: GNSO Council List Betreff: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report hard choice but definitely vote for A ;) Regards Rafik 2011/5/19 William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch> And here's one for A Bill On May 19, 2011, at 5:16 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: and another one. K ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of john@crediblecontext.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:22 PM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com Cc: tim@godaddy.com; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us Subject: RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report One more vote for B Berard > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant > Support Second Milestone Report > From: Stéphane Van Gelder > Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 9:23 am > To: "Neuman, Jeff" > Cc: "'tim@godaddy.com'" , > "'owner-council@gnso.icann.org'" , > "'council@gnso.icann.org'" > > So that's one vote for version B, right? > > Stéphane > > > > > > Le 17 mai 2011 à 17:54, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : > > Unfortunately, I cannot commit on behalf of the rysg to that last sentence on "observance" and would prefer its deletion since on our last rysg call questions were raised and I am not sure it adds to the substance of the note. > > Thanks. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. > > Vice President, Law & Policy > > NeuStar, Inc. > > Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz > > > > > > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:43 AM > To: tim@godaddy.com > > Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org ; Council GNSO > > Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report > > > > Thanks Tim, Jeff, Mary and Alan, > > This would be the proposed message then. Either (I call this version A): > > Dear Peter, > > > We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible. > > The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the GNSO-chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review. > > I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. > > > > Best regards, > Stephane van Gelder > GNSO Council Chair > > > Or (this my version B): > > > Dear Peter, > > > We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible. > > > I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. > > > > Best regards, > Stephane van Gelder > GNSO Council Chair > > > > As Olga had requested a vote, I would like to suggest that we give ourselves until Thursday's meeting to vote by return email to the list on either version A or B, and whichever has the most votes is the one I send. > > > Is that acceptable to everyone? > > > Thanks, > > > Stéphane > > > > > > > Le 17 mai 2011 à 14:12, tim@godaddy.com a écrit : > No objection if you remove the last sentence. There is no chartering process for CWGs. The ALAC and GNSO could not even agree on what the charter should be. And at least a few of us have concerns about how and why CWGs are being formed. > > > Tim > From: Stéphane Van Gelder > > Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org > > Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:45:21 +0200 > To: Council GNSO > Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report > > Councillors, > > Please find below the NCSG's suggestion on a message which I could send to the Chairman of the Board in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO. > > Thanks Mary for providing this draft. > > Please let me have your comments. > > Stéphane > > > > > > Le 14 mai 2011 à 16:31, a écrit : > > Hi - sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the Council letter; there has been some lively discussion among some NCSG folks about it. > > We suggest the following draft: > > Dear Peter, > > > We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible. > > The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review. > > I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. > > > > Best regards, > Stephane van Gelder > > 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 > > To: > Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond , Council GNSO > > Date: > 5/14/2011 5:18 AM > > Subject: > [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone ReportThanks Olivier. > > > GNSO Council, FYI. > > > A good weekend to all. > > > Stéphane > > > > > Le 14 mai 2011 à 11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit : > > > Dear Stéphane, > > please find enclosed, a copy of our follow-up message to the Board including ALAC comments. > Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any query about its contents. > Have a good week-end! > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > -------- Message original -------- > > > > Sujet: > Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report > > Date : > Fri, 13 May 2011 20:26:34 -0700 > > De : > ICANN At-Large Staff > > Pour : > Secretary > > Copie à : > ocl@gih.com , carlton.samuels@gmail.com , rafik.dammak@gmail.com , ICANN At-Large Staff > > Dear all, > > > The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC): > > The Second Milestone Report of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG), with a revised ALAC introduction (entitled �Status of this Document�); and > The Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report. > > We request that these documents (attached here) be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Board. > > The Second Milestone Report was received by the ALAC and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 7 May 2011. Then, the At-Large staff, on behalf of the ALAC, initially forwarded this Report to the Board on 9 May 2011. Please note that the Report itself has not been substantively changed since the Board initially received it on 9 May. > > During the period 7�13 May, comments on the Report were collected from the At-Large Community. These comments are the basis for the Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report attached here. > > The ALAC ratification process for the Second Milestone Report and the ALAC Statement will begin on 14 May, and the results will be forwarded to the Board. > > Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted independently and has not reached the approval stage. > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and Marilyn Vernon > ICANN At-Large Staff > > email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org > website: www.atlarge.icann.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Take a "none" from me please. --andrei From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 9:32 AM To: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report And here's one for A Bill On May 19, 2011, at 5:16 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: and another one. K _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of john@crediblecontext.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:22 PM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com Cc: tim@godaddy.com; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us Subject: RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report One more vote for B Berard
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report From: Stéphane Van Gelder Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 9:23 am To: "Neuman, Jeff" Cc: "'tim@godaddy.com'" , "'owner-council@gnso.icann.org'" , "'council@gnso.icann.org'"
So that's one vote for version B, right?
Stéphane
Le 17 mai 2011 à 17:54, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
Unfortunately, I cannot commit on behalf of the rysg to that last sentence on "observance" and would prefer its deletion since on our last rysg call questions were raised and I am not sure it adds to the substance of the note.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:43 AM To: tim@godaddy.com
Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org ; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Thanks Tim, Jeff, Mary and Alan,
This would be the proposed message then. Either (I call this version A):
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the GNSO-chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
Or (this my version B):
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
As Olga had requested a vote, I would like to suggest that we give ourselves until Thursday's meeting to vote by return email to the list on either version A or B, and whichever has the most votes is the one I send.
Is that acceptable to everyone?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 17 mai 2011 à 14:12, tim@godaddy.com a écrit : No objection if you remove the last sentence. There is no chartering process for CWGs. The ALAC and GNSO could not even agree on what the charter should be. And at least a few of us have concerns about how and why CWGs are being formed.
Tim From: Stéphane Van Gelder
Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:45:21 +0200 To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Councillors,
Please find below the NCSG's suggestion on a message which I could send to the Chairman of the Board in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO.
Thanks Mary for providing this draft.
Please let me have your comments.
Stéphane
Le 14 mai 2011 à 16:31, a écrit :
Hi - sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the Council letter; there has been some lively discussion among some NCSG folks about it.
We suggest the following draft:
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder
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
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond , Council GNSO
Date: 5/14/2011 5:18 AM
Subject: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone ReportThanks Olivier.
GNSO Council, FYI.
A good weekend to all.
Stéphane
Le 14 mai 2011 à 11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit :
Dear Stéphane,
please find enclosed, a copy of our follow-up message to the Board including ALAC comments. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any query about its contents. Have a good week-end! Kind regards,
Olivier
-------- Message original --------
Sujet: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Date : Fri, 13 May 2011 20:26:34 -0700
De : ICANN At-Large Staff
Pour : Secretary
Copie à : ocl@gih.com , carlton.samuels@gmail.com , rafik.dammak@gmail.com , ICANN At-Large Staff
Dear all,
The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC):
The Second Milestone Report of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG), with a revised ALAC introduction (entitled �Status of this Document�); and The Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report.
We request that these documents (attached here) be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Board.
The Second Milestone Report was received by the ALAC and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 7 May 2011. Then, the At-Large staff, on behalf of the ALAC, initially forwarded this Report to the Board on 9 May 2011. Please note that the Report itself has not been substantively changed since the Board initially received it on 9 May.
During the period 7�13 May, comments on the Report were collected from the At-Large Community. These comments are the basis for the Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report attached here.
The ALAC ratification process for the Second Milestone Report and the ALAC Statement will begin on 14 May, and the results will be forwarded to the Board.
Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted independently and has not reached the approval stage.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and Marilyn Vernon ICANN At-Large Staff
email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org
I want add my vote in favour for option "A" . 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 From: andrei@cctld.ru To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 18:43:55 +0400 Take a "none" from me please. --andrei From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 9:32 AM To: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report And here's one for A Bill On May 19, 2011, at 5:16 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: and another one. K From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of john@crediblecontext.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:22 PM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com Cc: tim@godaddy.com; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us Subject: RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone ReportOne more vote for B Berard
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report From: Stéphane Van Gelder Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 9:23 am To: "Neuman, Jeff" Cc: "'tim@godaddy.com'" , "'owner-council@gnso.icann.org'" , "'council@gnso.icann.org'"
So that's one vote for version B, right?
Stéphane
Le 17 mai 2011 à 17:54, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
Unfortunately, I cannot commit on behalf of the rysg to that last sentence on "observance" and would prefer its deletion since on our last rysg call questions were raised and I am not sure it adds to the substance of the note.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:43 AM To: tim@godaddy.com
Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org ; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Thanks Tim, Jeff, Mary and Alan,
This would be the proposed message then. Either (I call this version A):
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the GNSO-chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
Or (this my version B):
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
As Olga had requested a vote, I would like to suggest that we give ourselves until Thursday's meeting to vote by return email to the list on either version A or B, and whichever has the most votes is the one I send.
Is that acceptable to everyone?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 17 mai 2011 à 14:12, tim@godaddy.com a écrit : No objection if you remove the last sentence. There is no chartering process for CWGs. The ALAC and GNSO could not even agree on what the charter should be. And at least a few of us have concerns about how and why CWGs are being formed.
Tim From: Stéphane Van Gelder
Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:45:21 +0200 To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Councillors,
Please find below the NCSG's suggestion on a message which I could send to the Chairman of the Board in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO.
Thanks Mary for providing this draft.
Please let me have your comments.
Stéphane
Le 14 mai 2011 à 16:31, a écrit :
Hi - sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the Council letter; there has been some lively discussion among some NCSG folks about it.
We suggest the following draft:
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder
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
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond , Council GNSO
Date: 5/14/2011 5:18 AM
Subject: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone ReportThanks Olivier.
GNSO Council, FYI.
A good weekend to all.
Stéphane
Le 14 mai 2011 à 11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit :
Dear Stéphane,
please find enclosed, a copy of our follow-up message to the Board including ALAC comments. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any query about its contents. Have a good week-end! Kind regards,
Olivier
-------- Message original --------
Sujet: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Date : Fri, 13 May 2011 20:26:34 -0700
De : ICANN At-Large Staff
Pour : Secretary
Copie à : ocl@gih.com , carlton.samuels@gmail.com , rafik.dammak@gmail.com , ICANN At-Large Staff
Dear all,
The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC):
The Second Milestone Report of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG), with a revised ALAC introduction (entitled �Status of this Document�); and The Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report.
We request that these documents (attached here) be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Board.
The Second Milestone Report was received by the ALAC and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 7 May 2011. Then, the At-Large staff, on behalf of the ALAC, initially forwarded this Report to the Board on 9 May 2011. Please note that the Report itself has not been substantively changed since the Board initially received it on 9 May.
During the period 7�13 May, comments on the Report were collected from the At-Large Community. These comments are the basis for the Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report attached here.
The ALAC ratification process for the Second Milestone Report and the ALAC Statement will begin on 14 May, and the results will be forwarded to the Board.
Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted independently and has not reached the approval stage.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and Marilyn Vernon ICANN At-Large Staff
email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org
All, I have now had time to listen to most of the Council call. I would like to congratulate Jeff on doing such a good job of chairing the meeting in my stead, not that I had any doubt ;) My thanks Jeff for stepping in like that. I have listened to the Council discussions on the JAS. Let me add just a few words to your discussions. It is very clear to me that the Council chair may send an information message to the Board if he or she feels it is required. The onus here is on the word "information". The message should be factual only and contain nothing which could be construed as opinion. I was very comfortable with sending such a message to the Board in this case. However, once we started discussing, it became clear that some thought the proposed message not to be only informational. Also, one Councillor called for a vote. That being the case, I did not feel I could just brush these concerns aside and instead I proposed a vote on the list. The results of that vote are as follows: 6 in favor of message version A, 7 in favor of message version B and 1 in favor of "none of the above". To that tally we should add my vote, which would be for version B. So where does this leave us. Well, from both your discussions during the Council meeting and the vote and the discussion on the list, it is clear that there is an overwhelming majority for at least one thing: sending a message (Andrei's vote is really the only one that goes against this). In that regard, I concur with Jonathan who said on the call that we've probably done too much work on this already to just not do anything now. As for what message to send, that is not quite so easy. The Council is split, with a small majority leaning towards version B. On the call you all discussed adding the fact that the GNSO Council will vote on the JAS report at its next meeting, on June 9. I think this is once again purely factual so I would suggest we add this to the message. In fact, it seems to me that this new bit of information actually helps make the message more factual and less controversial. It helps do away, for example, with considerations of who chartered what and just keeps the message grounded in facts. So I would like to propose this draft, where we just tell the Board where we're at now and when they can expect something from us. Thanks, Stéphane Dear Peter, We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. A motion to do this was proposed at our May 19 teleconference and tabled until our next meeting, on June 9. I will therefore look to get back to you after this meeting to provide you with an update on the GNSO Council's decision re the JAS report. I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
Fine with me. ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 11:36 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report All, I have now had time to listen to most of the Council call. I would like to congratulate Jeff on doing such a good job of chairing the meeting in my stead, not that I had any doubt ;) My thanks Jeff for stepping in like that. I have listened to the Council discussions on the JAS. Let me add just a few words to your discussions. It is very clear to me that the Council chair may send an information message to the Board if he or she feels it is required. The onus here is on the word "information". The message should be factual only and contain nothing which could be construed as opinion. I was very comfortable with sending such a message to the Board in this case. However, once we started discussing, it became clear that some thought the proposed message not to be only informational. Also, one Councillor called for a vote. That being the case, I did not feel I could just brush these concerns aside and instead I proposed a vote on the list. The results of that vote are as follows: 6 in favor of message version A, 7 in favor of message version B and 1 in favor of "none of the above". To that tally we should add my vote, which would be for version B. So where does this leave us. Well, from both your discussions during the Council meeting and the vote and the discussion on the list, it is clear that there is an overwhelming majority for at least one thing: sending a message (Andrei's vote is really the only one that goes against this). In that regard, I concur with Jonathan who said on the call that we've probably done too much work on this already to just not do anything now. As for what message to send, that is not quite so easy. The Council is split, with a small majority leaning towards version B. On the call you all discussed adding the fact that the GNSO Council will vote on the JAS report at its next meeting, on June 9. I think this is once again purely factual so I would suggest we add this to the message. In fact, it seems to me that this new bit of information actually helps make the message more factual and less controversial. It helps do away, for example, with considerations of who chartered what and just keeps the message grounded in facts. So I would like to propose this draft, where we just tell the Board where we're at now and when they can expect something from us. Thanks, Stéphane Dear Peter, We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. A motion to do this was proposed at our May 19 teleconference and tabled until our next meeting, on June 9. I will therefore look to get back to you after this meeting to provide you with an update on the GNSO Council's decision re the JAS report. I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
OK with me. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Freitag, 20. Mai 2011 17:36 An: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Betreff: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report All, I have now had time to listen to most of the Council call. I would like to congratulate Jeff on doing such a good job of chairing the meeting in my stead, not that I had any doubt ;) My thanks Jeff for stepping in like that. I have listened to the Council discussions on the JAS. Let me add just a few words to your discussions. It is very clear to me that the Council chair may send an information message to the Board if he or she feels it is required. The onus here is on the word "information". The message should be factual only and contain nothing which could be construed as opinion. I was very comfortable with sending such a message to the Board in this case. However, once we started discussing, it became clear that some thought the proposed message not to be only informational. Also, one Councillor called for a vote. That being the case, I did not feel I could just brush these concerns aside and instead I proposed a vote on the list. The results of that vote are as follows: 6 in favor of message version A, 7 in favor of message version B and 1 in favor of "none of the above". To that tally we should add my vote, which would be for version B. So where does this leave us. Well, from both your discussions during the Council meeting and the vote and the discussion on the list, it is clear that there is an overwhelming majority for at least one thing: sending a message (Andrei's vote is really the only one that goes against this). In that regard, I concur with Jonathan who said on the call that we've probably done too much work on this already to just not do anything now. As for what message to send, that is not quite so easy. The Council is split, with a small majority leaning towards version B. On the call you all discussed adding the fact that the GNSO Council will vote on the JAS report at its next meeting, on June 9. I think this is once again purely factual so I would suggest we add this to the message. In fact, it seems to me that this new bit of information actually helps make the message more factual and less controversial. It helps do away, for example, with considerations of who chartered what and just keeps the message grounded in facts. So I would like to propose this draft, where we just tell the Board where we're at now and when they can expect something from us. Thanks, Stéphane Dear Peter, We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. A motion to do this was proposed at our May 19 teleconference and tabled until our next meeting, on June 9. I will therefore look to get back to you after this meeting to provide you with an update on the GNSO Council's decision re the JAS report. I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
I vote for A. --Wendy On 05/18/2011 11:16 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
and another one.
K
________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of john@crediblecontext.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:22 PM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com Cc: tim@godaddy.com; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us Subject: RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
One more vote for B
Berard
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report From: Stéphane Van Gelder Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 9:23 am To: "Neuman, Jeff" Cc: "'tim@godaddy.com'" , "'owner-council@gnso.icann.org'" , "'council@gnso.icann.org'"
So that's one vote for version B, right?
Stéphane
Le 17 mai 2011 à 17:54, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
Unfortunately, I cannot commit on behalf of the rysg to that last sentence on "observance" and would prefer its deletion since on our last rysg call questions were raised and I am not sure it adds to the substance of the note.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law& Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:43 AM To: tim@godaddy.com
Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org ; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Thanks Tim, Jeff, Mary and Alan,
This would be the proposed message then. Either (I call this version A):
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the GNSO-chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
Or (this my version B):
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
As Olga had requested a vote, I would like to suggest that we give ourselves until Thursday's meeting to vote by return email to the list on either version A or B, and whichever has the most votes is the one I send.
Is that acceptable to everyone?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 17 mai 2011 à 14:12, tim@godaddy.com a écrit : No objection if you remove the last sentence. There is no chartering process for CWGs. The ALAC and GNSO could not even agree on what the charter should be. And at least a few of us have concerns about how and why CWGs are being formed.
Tim From: Stéphane Van Gelder
Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:45:21 +0200 To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Councillors,
Please find below the NCSG's suggestion on a message which I could send to the Chairman of the Board in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO.
Thanks Mary for providing this draft.
Please let me have your comments.
Stéphane
Le 14 mai 2011 à 16:31, a écrit :
Hi - sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the Council letter; there has been some lively discussion among some NCSG folks about it.
We suggest the following draft:
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder
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
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond , Council GNSO
Date: 5/14/2011 5:18 AM
Subject: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone ReportThanks Olivier.
GNSO Council, FYI.
A good weekend to all.
Stéphane
Le 14 mai 2011 à 11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit :
Dear Stéphane,
please find enclosed, a copy of our follow-up message to the Board including ALAC comments. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any query about its contents. Have a good week-end! Kind regards,
Olivier
-------- Message original --------
Sujet: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Date : Fri, 13 May 2011 20:26:34 -0700
De : ICANN At-Large Staff
Pour : Secretary
Copie à : ocl@gih.com , carlton.samuels@gmail.com , rafik.dammak@gmail.com , ICANN At-Large Staff
Dear all,
The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC):
The Second Milestone Report of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG), with a revised ALAC introduction (entitled �Status of this Document�); and The Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report.
We request that these documents (attached here) be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Board.
The Second Milestone Report was received by the ALAC and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 7 May 2011. Then, the At-Large staff, on behalf of the ALAC, initially forwarded this Report to the Board on 9 May 2011. Please note that the Report itself has not been substantively changed since the Board initially received it on 9 May.
During the period 7�13 May, comments on the Report were collected from the At-Large Community. These comments are the basis for the Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report attached here.
The ALAC ratification process for the Second Milestone Report and the ALAC Statement will begin on 14 May, and the results will be forwarded to the Board.
Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted independently and has not reached the approval stage.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and Marilyn Vernon ICANN At-Large Staff
email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
Hi, + 1 for A best Olga 2011/5/19 Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>
I vote for A.
--Wendy
On 05/18/2011 11:16 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
and another one.
K
________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of john@crediblecontext.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:22 PM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com Cc: tim@godaddy.com; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us Subject: RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
One more vote for B
Berard
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report From: Stéphane Van Gelder Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 9:23 am To: "Neuman, Jeff" Cc: "'tim@godaddy.com'" , "'owner-council@gnso.icann.org'" , "'council@gnso.icann.org'"
So that's one vote for version B, right?
Stéphane
Le 17 mai 2011 à 17:54, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
Unfortunately, I cannot commit on behalf of the rysg to that last sentence on "observance" and would prefer its deletion since on our last rysg call questions were raised and I am not sure it adds to the substance of the note.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law& Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:43 AM To: tim@godaddy.com
Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org ; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Thanks Tim, Jeff, Mary and Alan,
This would be the proposed message then. Either (I call this version A):
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the GNSO-chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
Or (this my version B):
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
As Olga had requested a vote, I would like to suggest that we give ourselves until Thursday's meeting to vote by return email to the list on either version A or B, and whichever has the most votes is the one I send.
Is that acceptable to everyone?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 17 mai 2011 à 14:12, tim@godaddy.com a écrit : No objection if you remove the last sentence. There is no chartering process for CWGs. The ALAC and GNSO could not even agree on what the charter should be. And at least a few of us have concerns about how and why CWGs are being formed.
Tim From: Stéphane Van Gelder
Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:45:21 +0200 To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Councillors,
Please find below the NCSG's suggestion on a message which I could send to the Chairman of the Board in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO.
Thanks Mary for providing this draft.
Please let me have your comments.
Stéphane
Le 14 mai 2011 à 16:31, a écrit :
Hi - sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the Council letter; there has been some lively discussion among some NCSG folks about it.
We suggest the following draft:
Dear Peter,
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible.
The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best regards, Stephane van Gelder
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
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond , Council GNSO
Date: 5/14/2011 5:18 AM
Subject: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone ReportThanks Olivier.
GNSO Council, FYI.
A good weekend to all.
Stéphane
Le 14 mai 2011 à 11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit :
Dear Stéphane,
please find enclosed, a copy of our follow-up message to the Board including ALAC comments. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any query about its contents. Have a good week-end! Kind regards,
Olivier
-------- Message original --------
Sujet: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
Date : Fri, 13 May 2011 20:26:34 -0700
De : ICANN At-Large Staff
Pour : Secretary
Copie à : ocl@gih.com , carlton.samuels@gmail.com , rafik.dammak@gmail.com , ICANN At-Large Staff
Dear all,
The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC):
The Second Milestone Report of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG), with a revised ALAC introduction (entitled �Status of this Document�); and The Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report.
We request that these documents (attached here) be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Board.
The Second Milestone Report was received by the ALAC and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 7 May 2011. Then, the At-Large staff, on behalf of the ALAC, initially forwarded this Report to the Board on 9 May 2011. Please note that the Report itself has not been substantively changed since the Board initially received it on 9 May.
During the period 7�13 May, comments on the Report were collected from the At-Large Community. These comments are the basis for the Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report attached here.
The ALAC ratification process for the Second Milestone Report and the ALAC Statement will begin on 14 May, and the results will be forwarded to the Board.
Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted independently and has not reached the approval stage.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and Marilyn Vernon ICANN At-Large Staff
email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
I vote for A 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 <mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Olga Cavalli Sent: Thu 5/19/2011 8:31 AM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report Hi, + 1 for A best Olga 2011/5/19 Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> I vote for A. --Wendy On 05/18/2011 11:16 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: and another one. K ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of john@crediblecontext.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:22 PM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com Cc: tim@godaddy.com; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us Subject: RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report One more vote for B Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report From: Stéphane Van Gelder Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 9:23 am To: "Neuman, Jeff" Cc: "'tim@godaddy.com'" , "'owner-council@gnso.icann.org'" , "'council@gnso.icann.org'" So that's one vote for version B, right? Stéphane Le 17 mai 2011 à 17:54, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : Unfortunately, I cannot commit on behalf of the rysg to that last sentence on "observance" and would prefer its deletion since on our last rysg call questions were raised and I am not sure it adds to the substance of the note. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Vice President, Law& Policy NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:43 AM To: tim@godaddy.com Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org ; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report Thanks Tim, Jeff, Mary and Alan, This would be the proposed message then. Either (I call this version A): Dear Peter, We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible. The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the GNSO-chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review. I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair Or (this my version B): Dear Peter, We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible. I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best regards, Stephane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair As Olga had requested a vote, I would like to suggest that we give ourselves until Thursday's meeting to vote by return email to the list on either version A or B, and whichever has the most votes is the one I send. Is that acceptable to everyone? Thanks, Stéphane Le 17 mai 2011 à 14:12, tim@godaddy.com a écrit : No objection if you remove the last sentence. There is no chartering process for CWGs. The ALAC and GNSO could not even agree on what the charter should be. And at least a few of us have concerns about how and why CWGs are being formed. Tim From: Stéphane Van Gelder Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:45:21 +0200 To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report Councillors, Please find below the NCSG's suggestion on a message which I could send to the Chairman of the Board in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO. Thanks Mary for providing this draft. Please let me have your comments. Stéphane Le 14 mai 2011 à 16:31, a écrit : Hi - sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the Council letter; there has been some lively discussion among some NCSG folks about it. We suggest the following draft: Dear Peter, We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as possible. The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the chartering process, in submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review. I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best regards, Stephane van Gelder 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 To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond , Council GNSO Date: 5/14/2011 5:18 AM Subject: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone ReportThanks Olivier. GNSO Council, FYI. A good weekend to all. Stéphane Le 14 mai 2011 à 11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit : Dear Stéphane, please find enclosed, a copy of our follow-up message to the Board including ALAC comments. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any query about its contents. Have a good week-end! Kind regards, Olivier -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report Date : Fri, 13 May 2011 20:26:34 -0700 De : ICANN At-Large Staff Pour : Secretary Copie à : ocl@gih.com , carlton.samuels@gmail.com , rafik.dammak@gmail.com , ICANN At-Large Staff Dear all, The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC): The Second Milestone Report of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG), with a revised ALAC introduction (entitled ?Status of this Document?); and The Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report. We request that these documents (attached here) be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Board. The Second Milestone Report was received by the ALAC and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 7 May 2011. Then, the At-Large staff, on behalf of the ALAC, initially forwarded this Report to the Board on 9 May 2011. Please note that the Report itself has not been substantively changed since the Board initially received it on 9 May. During the period 7?13 May, comments on the Report were collected from the At-Large Community. These comments are the basis for the Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report attached here. The ALAC ratification process for the Second Milestone Report and the ALAC Statement will begin on 14 May, and the results will be forwarded to the Board. Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted independently and has not reached the approval stage. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and Marilyn Vernon ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> website: www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
participants (11)
-
Andrei Kolesnikov -
carlos dionisio aguirre -
HughesDeb＠usa.redcross.org -
john＠crediblecontext.com -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Olga Cavalli -
Rafik Dammak -
Rosette, Kristina -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Wendy Seltzer -
William Drake