Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
Councillors, FYI. I have responded to Katim explaining that as the GNSO Council has not approved the report yet, having a call may be premature at this stage. Obviously, I would welcome any other input from any of you. It does seem however that the Board is not clear on the fact that this report has not been approved. Discussions by them of a "way forward" on a report that hasn't yet been approved by us may just be thinking ahead, or it may be that they have not cottoned on to the fact that the report hasn't yet been approved... Stéphane Début du message réexpédié :
De : "Katim S. Touray" <kstouray@gmail.com> Date : 23 mai 2011 03:13:11 HAEC À : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Objet : Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
Dear Olivier and Stéphane,
First, let me congratulate you and your teams, as well as the JAS WG on their second report. I've had the opportunity to go through it, and it's quality work.
To follow on the second JAS WG report, I would like to ask if you'd be interested in organizing a conference call for interested board members and the GNSO, GAC, and At-Large reps to discuss the status and way forward for the recently released JAS WG report. The idea was presented at the recently concluded board retreat in Istanbul that a public meeting on the JAS WG report (with the participation of the board and GAC) will be helpful, and toward this end, it would be useful to have a conference call. Please let me know if this makes sense to you and let me know when you want to have the call, if indeed you want to have it.
Again, thanks to all of you and your teams for the great work you're doing on the issue! I hope we'll all be able to come together to have a useful program we all can be proud of. Have a great week, and best wishes!
Sincerely,
Katim
Hi, 2011/5/23 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
Councillors, FYI.
I have responded to Katim explaining that as the GNSO Council has not approved the report yet, having a call may be premature at this stage.
where is your response? I don't think that a call which can clarify many things to stakeholders is premature ,
Obviously, I would welcome any other input from any of you.
It does seem however that the Board is not clear on the fact that this report has not been approved. Discussions by them of a "way forward" on a report that hasn't yet been approved by us may just be thinking ahead, or it may be that they have not cottoned on to the fact that the report hasn't yet been approved...
are you wondering or speculating here?
how can you assume that? why? Rafik
Stéphane
Début du message réexpédié :
*De : *"Katim S. Touray" <kstouray@gmail.com> *Date : *23 mai 2011 03:13:11 HAEC *À : *Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, Stéphane Van Gelder < stephane.vangelder@indom.com> *Objet : **Follow-up to the second JAS WG report*
Dear Olivier and Stéphane,
First, let me congratulate you and your teams, as well as the JAS WG on their second report. I've had the opportunity to go through it, and it's quality work.
To follow on the second JAS WG report, I would like to ask if you'd be interested in organizing a conference call for interested board members and the GNSO, GAC, and At-Large reps to discuss the status and way forward for the recently released JAS WG report. The idea was presented at the recently concluded board retreat in Istanbul that a public meeting on the JAS WG report (with the participation of the board and GAC) will be helpful, and toward this end, it would be useful to have a conference call. Please let me know if this makes sense to you and let me know when you want to have the call, if indeed you want to have it.
Again, thanks to all of you and your teams for the great work you're doing on the issue! I hope we'll all be able to come together to have a useful program we all can be proud of. Have a great week, and best wishes!
Sincerely,
Katim
Stéphane Le 23 mai 2011 à 11:43, Rafik Dammak a écrit :
Hi,
2011/5/23 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Councillors, FYI.
I have responded to Katim explaining that as the GNSO Council has not approved the report yet, having a call may be premature at this stage.
where is your response? I don't think that a call which can clarify many things to stakeholders is premature ,
What would you suggest, as co-chair of the group, that the Board needs to know right now, apart from the status of the report (which is the object of the email I will send tomorrow and which we have been working on for the past few days)? Do you think the Board should be asking questions on the report itself, even though it hasn't been approved yet?
Obviously, I would welcome any other input from any of you.
It does seem however that the Board is not clear on the fact that this report has not been approved. Discussions by them of a "way forward" on a report that hasn't yet been approved by us may just be thinking ahead, or it may be that they have not cottoned on to the fact that the report hasn't yet been approved...
are you wondering or speculating here? how can you assume that? why?
Wondering.
Rafik
Stéphane
Début du message réexpédié :
De : "Katim S. Touray" <kstouray@gmail.com> Date : 23 mai 2011 03:13:11 HAEC À : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Objet : Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
Dear Olivier and Stéphane,
First, let me congratulate you and your teams, as well as the JAS WG on their second report. I've had the opportunity to go through it, and it's quality work.
To follow on the second JAS WG report, I would like to ask if you'd be interested in organizing a conference call for interested board members and the GNSO, GAC, and At-Large reps to discuss the status and way forward for the recently released JAS WG report. The idea was presented at the recently concluded board retreat in Istanbul that a public meeting on the JAS WG report (with the participation of the board and GAC) will be helpful, and toward this end, it would be useful to have a conference call. Please let me know if this makes sense to you and let me know when you want to have the call, if indeed you want to have it.
Again, thanks to all of you and your teams for the great work you're doing on the issue! I hope we'll all be able to come together to have a useful program we all can be proud of. Have a great week, and best wishes!
Sincerely,
Katim
Hi Stéphane On May 23, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Discussions by them of a "way forward" on a report that hasn't yet been approved by us may just be thinking ahead, or it may be that they have not cottoned on to the fact that the report hasn't yet been approved…
I suspect they do understand what is plainly obvious but believe consideration of a "way forward" is necessary nonetheless. Which would be a sound conclusion, given the serious need to broaden both international participation in gTLDs and political support for ICANN. With regard to your letter, may I suggest a small and incontrovertibly factual amendment that would be entirely in keeping with your purely informational objective here? How's about adding the following: "In light of false information that has been circulated on the matter, the GNSO Council would also like to confirm that the JAS WG simultaneously submitted its Report to ALAC and the GNSO for review." This is should eliminate the NC opposition to a letter (haven't asked, but believe so). Bill
Thanks Bill. The message would then become: 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. In light of false information that has been circulated on the matter, the GNSO Council would also like to confirm that the JAS WG simultaneously submitted its Report 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 If anyone disagrees with the content of the message as stated, please say so by COB tonight so that I can send the message tomorrow as planned. Stéphane Le 23 mai 2011 à 13:16, William Drake a écrit :
Hi Stéphane
On May 23, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Discussions by them of a "way forward" on a report that hasn't yet been approved by us may just be thinking ahead, or it may be that they have not cottoned on to the fact that the report hasn't yet been approved…
I suspect they do understand what is plainly obvious but believe consideration of a "way forward" is necessary nonetheless. Which would be a sound conclusion, given the serious need to broaden both international participation in gTLDs and political support for ICANN.
With regard to your letter, may I suggest a small and incontrovertibly factual amendment that would be entirely in keeping with your purely informational objective here? How's about adding the following: "In light of false information that has been circulated on the matter, the GNSO Council would also like to confirm that the JAS WG simultaneously submitted its Report to ALAC and the GNSO for review." This is should eliminate the NC opposition to a letter (haven't asked, but believe so).
Bill
Bill, could you please provide me with the "false information circulated"? Sorry, I forget too many things. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 13:43 An: William Drake Cc: GNSO Council Betreff: Re: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Thanks Bill. The message would then become: 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. In light of false information that has been circulated on the matter, the GNSO Council would also like to confirm that the JAS WG simultaneously submitted its Report 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 If anyone disagrees with the content of the message as stated, please say so by COB tonight so that I can send the message tomorrow as planned. Stéphane Le 23 mai 2011 à 13:16, William Drake a écrit : Hi Stéphane On May 23, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: Discussions by them of a "way forward" on a report that hasn't yet been approved by us may just be thinking ahead, or it may be that they have not cottoned on to the fact that the report hasn't yet been approved... I suspect they do understand what is plainly obvious but believe consideration of a "way forward" is necessary nonetheless. Which would be a sound conclusion, given the serious need to broaden both international participation in gTLDs and political support for ICANN. With regard to your letter, may I suggest a small and incontrovertibly factual amendment that would be entirely in keeping with your purely informational objective here? How's about adding the following: "In light of false information that has been circulated on the matter, the GNSO Council would also like to confirm that the JAS WG simultaneously submitted its Report to ALAC and the GNSO for review." This is should eliminate the NC opposition to a letter (haven't asked, but believe so). Bill
Hi Wolf-Ulrich On May 23, 2011, at 2:03 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
could you please provide me with the "false information circulated"? Sorry, I forget too many things.
I believe we discussed previously the fact that there were people running around saying that JAS had directly submitted its report to the Board in some sort of dastardly plot to circumvent the GNSO Council. These rumblings were then put into words on a widely read blog http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110512_icann_tiptoes_through_political_minef... which prompted Alan and other JAS members to issue corrections. I don't know whether those corrections have been widely read and internalized or if there are still people out there laboring under misunderstandings. But I would think the Council would have a self-interest in stating for the record that the process was followed and it was not dissed. Best, Bill
In the interest of clarity, I believe this is the excerpt from the blog post that Bill is referring to: Support for Needy Applicants ICANN is awaiting guidance from the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group who submitted their report directly to the Board over this past weekend. It's not clear why the GNSO was circumvented from the process, or how that will be addressed by the Board. While the ICANN Community all seem to agree there needs to be a mechanism for providing support to needy applicants, a workable solution needs to be found. I've not read the full report yet, but am hopeful. And in the interest of consensus and moving ahead with this, Jeff or anyone else, is it really such a big problem to add Bill's sentence and send the message as suggested in my latest draft? If we are worried about the fact that the Board could get the wrong idea about the report and not understand that it hasn't been approved yet, which is the rationale behind us working on this message in the first place, then it does not seem totally out of place to also address another misunderstanding that some worry might exist, does it? Even if we don't all think the misunderstanding exists. Let's not forget that some of us didn't think that the first misunderstanding (about the Board not getting the fact that the report hasn't been approved) existed and yet, they still agreed to send the message. So my suggestion is that the message as it currently stands incorporates all these varied POVs and allows us to move forwards. Thanks, Stéphane Le 23 mai 2011 à 14:17, William Drake a écrit :
Hi Wolf-Ulrich
On May 23, 2011, at 2:03 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
could you please provide me with the "false information circulated"? Sorry, I forget too many things.
I believe we discussed previously the fact that there were people running around saying that JAS had directly submitted its report to the Board in some sort of dastardly plot to circumvent the GNSO Council. These rumblings were then put into words on a widely read blog http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110512_icann_tiptoes_through_political_minef... which prompted Alan and other JAS members to issue corrections. I don't know whether those corrections have been widely read and internalized or if there are still people out there laboring under misunderstandings. But I would think the Council would have a self-interest in stating for the record that the process was followed and it was not dissed.
Best,
Bill
Thanks both, Bill and Stéphane. I think this is acceptable. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 14:27 An: William Drake Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report In the interest of clarity, I believe this is the excerpt from the blog post that Bill is referring to: Support for Needy Applicants * ICANN is awaiting guidance from the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group who submitted their report directly to the Board over this past weekend. It's not clear why the GNSO was circumvented from the process, or how that will be addressed by the Board. While the ICANN Community all seem to agree there needs to be a mechanism for providing support to needy applicants, a workable solution needs to be found. I've not read the full report yet, but am hopeful. And in the interest of consensus and moving ahead with this, Jeff or anyone else, is it really such a big problem to add Bill's sentence and send the message as suggested in my latest draft? If we are worried about the fact that the Board could get the wrong idea about the report and not understand that it hasn't been approved yet, which is the rationale behind us working on this message in the first place, then it does not seem totally out of place to also address another misunderstanding that some worry might exist, does it? Even if we don't all think the misunderstanding exists. Let's not forget that some of us didn't think that the first misunderstanding (about the Board not getting the fact that the report hasn't been approved) existed and yet, they still agreed to send the message. So my suggestion is that the message as it currently stands incorporates all these varied POVs and allows us to move forwards. Thanks, Stéphane Le 23 mai 2011 à 14:17, William Drake a écrit : Hi Wolf-Ulrich On May 23, 2011, at 2:03 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote: could you please provide me with the "false information circulated"? Sorry, I forget too many things. I believe we discussed previously the fact that there were people running around saying that JAS had directly submitted its report to the Board in some sort of dastardly plot to circumvent the GNSO Council. These rumblings were then put into words on a widely read blog http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110512_icann_tiptoes_through_political_minef... which prompted Alan and other JAS members to issue corrections. I don't know whether those corrections have been widely read and internalized or if there are still people out there laboring under misunderstandings. But I would think the Council would have a self-interest in stating for the record that the process was followed and it was not dissed. Best, Bill
As I'd indicated on the Council call, I believe it's our duty to correct factual misrepresentations that we know have taken place by/within the GNSO community. As such, I support sending the letter as Stephane now has it (i.e. including Bill's language). I note also that neither this version nor my earlier attempts to achieve a similar result are "NCSG positions" as such, although I believe a number of other NCSG Councilors share my view. As Jeff points out, we are not in a position to alter what ALAC/At Large did as part of their process. We are, however, obliged not to permit continued misperceptions about what happened to circulate amongst our community. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: <KnobenW@telekom.de> To:<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, <william.drake@uzh.ch> CC:<council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/23/2011 9:10 AM Subject: AW: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Thanks both, Bill and Stéphane. I think this is acceptable. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 14:27 An: William Drake Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report In the interest of clarity, I believe this is the excerpt from the blog post that Bill is referring to: Support for Needy Applicants ICANN is awaiting guidance from the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group who submitted their report directly to the Board over this past weekend. It's not clear why the GNSO was circumvented from the process, or how that will be addressed by the Board. While the ICANN Community all seem to agree there needs to be a mechanism for providing support to needy applicants, a workable solution needs to be found. I've not read the full report yet, but am hopeful. And in the interest of consensus and moving ahead with this, Jeff or anyone else, is it really such a big problem to add Bill's sentence and send the message as suggested in my latest draft? If we are worried about the fact that the Board could get the wrong idea about the report and not understand that it hasn't been approved yet, which is the rationale behind us working on this message in the first place, then it does not seem totally out of place to also address another misunderstanding that some worry might exist, does it? Even if we don't all think the misunderstanding exists. Let's not forget that some of us didn't think that the first misunderstanding (about the Board not getting the fact that the report hasn't been approved) existed and yet, they still agreed to send the message. So my suggestion is that the message as it currently stands incorporates all these varied POVs and allows us to move forwards. Thanks, Stéphane Le 23 mai 2011 à 14:17, William Drake a écrit : Hi Wolf-Ulrich On May 23, 2011, at 2:03 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote: could you please provide me with the "false information circulated"? Sorry, I forget too many things. I believe we discussed previously the fact that there were people running around saying that JAS had directly submitted its report to the Board in some sort of dastardly plot to circumvent the GNSO Council. These rumblings were then put into words on a widely read blog http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110512_icann_tiptoes_through_political_minef... which prompted Alan and other JAS members to issue corrections. I don't know whether those corrections have been widely read and internalized or if there are still people out there laboring under misunderstandings. But I would think the Council would have a self-interest in stating for the record that the process was followed and it was not dissed. Best, Bill
Mary, I agree and support your sentiments. Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org <mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:04 AM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; KnobenW@telekom.de; william.drake@uzh.ch Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re:: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report As I'd indicated on the Council call, I believe it's our duty to correct factual misrepresentations that we know have taken place by/within the GNSO community. As such, I support sending the letter as Stephane now has it (i.e. including Bill's language). I note also that neither this version nor my earlier attempts to achieve a similar result are "NCSG positions" as such, although I believe a number of other NCSG Councilors share my view. As Jeff points out, we are not in a position to alter what ALAC/At Large did as part of their process. We are, however, obliged not to permit continued misperceptions about what happened to circulate amongst our community. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: <KnobenW@telekom.de> To: <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, <william.drake@uzh.ch> CC: <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/23/2011 9:10 AM Subject: AW: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Thanks both, Bill and Stéphane. I think this is acceptable. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 14:27 An: William Drake Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report In the interest of clarity, I believe this is the excerpt from the blog post that Bill is referring to: Support for Needy Applicants * ICANN is awaiting guidance from the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group who submitted their report directly to the Board over this past weekend. It's not clear why the GNSO was circumvented from the process, or how that will be addressed by the Board. While the ICANN Community all seem to agree there needs to be a mechanism for providing support to needy applicants, a workable solution needs to be found. I've not read the full report yet, but am hopeful. And in the interest of consensus and moving ahead with this, Jeff or anyone else, is it really such a big problem to add Bill's sentence and send the message as suggested in my latest draft? If we are worried about the fact that the Board could get the wrong idea about the report and not understand that it hasn't been approved yet, which is the rationale behind us working on this message in the first place, then it does not seem totally out of place to also address another misunderstanding that some worry might exist, does it? Even if we don't all think the misunderstanding exists. Let's not forget that some of us didn't think that the first misunderstanding (about the Board not getting the fact that the report hasn't been approved) existed and yet, they still agreed to send the message. So my suggestion is that the message as it currently stands incorporates all these varied POVs and allows us to move forwards. Thanks, Stéphane Le 23 mai 2011 à 14:17, William Drake a écrit : Hi Wolf-Ulrich On May 23, 2011, at 2:03 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote: could you please provide me with the "false information circulated"? Sorry, I forget too many things. I believe we discussed previously the fact that there were people running around saying that JAS had directly submitted its report to the Board in some sort of dastardly plot to circumvent the GNSO Council. These rumblings were then put into words on a widely read blog http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110512_icann_tiptoes_through_political_minef... which prompted Alan and other JAS members to issue corrections. I don't know whether those corrections have been widely read and internalized or if there are still people out there laboring under misunderstandings. But I would think the Council would have a self-interest in stating for the record that the process was followed and it was not dissed. Best, Bill
If that is our duty we will have little time for anything else. We could likely argue for weeks about the inaccuracy of some of the NCSG comments in blogs, etc. about contracted parties. Fortunately, our charge is fairly simple, manage the policy process. Let's just stick to that, please. Tim -----Original Message----- From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 10:17:33 To: <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <KnobenW@telekom.de>; <william.drake@uzh.ch> Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Mary, I agree and support your sentiments. Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org <mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:04 AM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; KnobenW@telekom.de; william.drake@uzh.ch Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re:: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report As I'd indicated on the Council call, I believe it's our duty to correct factual misrepresentations that we know have taken place by/within the GNSO community. As such, I support sending the letter as Stephane now has it (i.e. including Bill's language). I note also that neither this version nor my earlier attempts to achieve a similar result are "NCSG positions" as such, although I believe a number of other NCSG Councilors share my view. As Jeff points out, we are not in a position to alter what ALAC/At Large did as part of their process. We are, however, obliged not to permit continued misperceptions about what happened to circulate amongst our community. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: <KnobenW@telekom.de> To: <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, <william.drake@uzh.ch> CC: <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/23/2011 9:10 AM Subject: AW: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Thanks both, Bill and Stéphane. I think this is acceptable. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 14:27 An: William Drake Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report In the interest of clarity, I believe this is the excerpt from the blog post that Bill is referring to: Support for Needy Applicants * ICANN is awaiting guidance from the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group who submitted their report directly to the Board over this past weekend. It's not clear why the GNSO was circumvented from the process, or how that will be addressed by the Board. While the ICANN Community all seem to agree there needs to be a mechanism for providing support to needy applicants, a workable solution needs to be found. I've not read the full report yet, but am hopeful. And in the interest of consensus and moving ahead with this, Jeff or anyone else, is it really such a big problem to add Bill's sentence and send the message as suggested in my latest draft? If we are worried about the fact that the Board could get the wrong idea about the report and not understand that it hasn't been approved yet, which is the rationale behind us working on this message in the first place, then it does not seem totally out of place to also address another misunderstanding that some worry might exist, does it? Even if we don't all think the misunderstanding exists. Let's not forget that some of us didn't think that the first misunderstanding (about the Board not getting the fact that the report hasn't been approved) existed and yet, they still agreed to send the message. So my suggestion is that the message as it currently stands incorporates all these varied POVs and allows us to move forwards. Thanks, Stéphane Le 23 mai 2011 à 14:17, William Drake a écrit : Hi Wolf-Ulrich On May 23, 2011, at 2:03 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote: could you please provide me with the "false information circulated"? Sorry, I forget too many things. I believe we discussed previously the fact that there were people running around saying that JAS had directly submitted its report to the Board in some sort of dastardly plot to circumvent the GNSO Council. These rumblings were then put into words on a widely read blog http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110512_icann_tiptoes_through_political_minef... which prompted Alan and other JAS members to issue corrections. I don't know whether those corrections have been widely read and internalized or if there are still people out there laboring under misunderstandings. But I would think the Council would have a self-interest in stating for the record that the process was followed and it was not dissed. Best, Bill
Tim: I would like if you could clarify the sentence "We could likely argue for weeks about the inaccuracy of some of the NCSG comments in blogs, etc. about contracted parties" . I consider necessary determinate in a clear way the names of NCSG`s, and facts wich you mention, because you can not involve every NCSG members on this. And when you say "some" unfortunatelly you are mentioning to all. thanks Carlos Dionisio Aguirre NCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALO Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org Subject: Re: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report To: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; KnobenW@telekom.de; william.drake@uzh.ch CC: council@gnso.icann.org From: tim@godaddy.com Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:29:28 +0000 If that is our duty we will have little time for anything else. We could likely argue for weeks about the inaccuracy of some of the NCSG comments in blogs, etc. about contracted parties. Fortunately, our charge is fairly simple, manage the policy process. Let's just stick to that, please. Tim From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 10:17:33 -0400To: <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <KnobenW@telekom.de>; <william.drake@uzh.ch>Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org>Subject: RE: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Mary, I agree and support your sentiments. Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:04 AM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; KnobenW@telekom.de; william.drake@uzh.ch Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re:: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report As I'd indicated on the Council call, I believe it's our duty to correct factual misrepresentations that we know have taken place by/within the GNSO community. As such, I support sending the letter as Stephane now has it (i.e. including Bill's language). I note also that neither this version nor my earlier attempts to achieve a similar result are "NCSG positions" as such, although I believe a number of other NCSG Councilors share my view. As Jeff points out, we are not in a position to alter what ALAC/At Large did as part of their process. We are, however, obliged not to permit continued misperceptions about what happened to circulate amongst our community. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: <KnobenW@telekom.de> To: <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, <william.drake@uzh.ch> CC: <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/23/2011 9:10 AM Subject: AW: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Thanks both, Bill and Stéphane. I think this is acceptable. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 14:27 An: William Drake Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report In the interest of clarity, I believe this is the excerpt from the blog post that Bill is referring to: Support for Needy Applicants ICANN is awaiting guidance from the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group who submitted their report directly to the Board over this past weekend. It's not clear why the GNSO was circumvented from the process, or how that will be addressed by the Board. While the ICANN Community all seem to agree there needs to be a mechanism for providing support to needy applicants, a workable solution needs to be found. I've not read the full report yet, but am hopeful. And in the interest of consensus and moving ahead with this, Jeff or anyone else, is it really such a big problem to add Bill's sentence and send the message as suggested in my latest draft? If we are worried about the fact that the Board could get the wrong idea about the report and not understand that it hasn't been approved yet, which is the rationale behind us working on this message in the first place, then it does not seem totally out of place to also address another misunderstanding that some worry might exist, does it? Even if we don't all think the misunderstanding exists. Let's not forget that some of us didn't think that the first misunderstanding (about the Board not getting the fact that the report hasn't been approved) existed and yet, they still agreed to send the message. So my suggestion is that the message as it currently stands incorporates all these varied POVs and allows us to move forwards. Thanks, Stéphane Le 23 mai 2011 à 14:17, William Drake a écrit : Hi Wolf-Ulrich On May 23, 2011, at 2:03 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote: could you please provide me with the "false information circulated"? Sorry, I forget too many things. I believe we discussed previously the fact that there were people running around saying that JAS had directly submitted its report to the Board in some sort of dastardly plot to circumvent the GNSO Council. These rumblings were then put into words on a widely read blog http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110512_icann_tiptoes_through_political_minef... which prompted Alan and other JAS members to issue corrections. I don't know whether those corrections have been widely read and internalized or if there are still people out there laboring under misunderstandings. But I would think the Council would have a self-interest in stating for the record that the process was followed and it was not dissed. Best, Bill
Carlos, Was referring to Avri's posts. Assumed those were general views of NCSG. Apologize if not. But my point about what the Council is supposed to be doing remains. Tim -----Original Message----- From: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:05:32 To: <tim@godaddy.com>; <hughesdeb@usa.redcross.org>; <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>; <mary.wong@law.unh.edu>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <knobenw@telekom.de>; william Drake<william.drake@uzh.ch> Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Tim: I would like if you could clarify the sentence "We could likely argue for weeks about the inaccuracy of some of the NCSG comments in blogs, etc. about contracted parties" . I consider necessary determinate in a clear way the names of NCSG`s, and facts wich you mention, because you can not involve every NCSG members on this. And when you say "some" unfortunatelly you are mentioning to all. thanks Carlos Dionisio Aguirre NCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALO Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org Subject: Re: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report To: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; KnobenW@telekom.de; william.drake@uzh.ch CC: council@gnso.icann.org From: tim@godaddy.com Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:29:28 +0000 If that is our duty we will have little time for anything else. We could likely argue for weeks about the inaccuracy of some of the NCSG comments in blogs, etc. about contracted parties. Fortunately, our charge is fairly simple, manage the policy process. Let's just stick to that, please. Tim From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 10:17:33 -0400To: <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <KnobenW@telekom.de>; <william.drake@uzh.ch>Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org>Subject: RE: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Mary, I agree and support your sentiments. Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:04 AM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; KnobenW@telekom.de; william.drake@uzh.ch Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re:: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report As I'd indicated on the Council call, I believe it's our duty to correct factual misrepresentations that we know have taken place by/within the GNSO community. As such, I support sending the letter as Stephane now has it (i.e. including Bill's language). I note also that neither this version nor my earlier attempts to achieve a similar result are "NCSG positions" as such, although I believe a number of other NCSG Councilors share my view. As Jeff points out, we are not in a position to alter what ALAC/At Large did as part of their process. We are, however, obliged not to permit continued misperceptions about what happened to circulate amongst our community. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: <KnobenW@telekom.de> To: <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, <william.drake@uzh.ch> CC: <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/23/2011 9:10 AM Subject: AW: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Thanks both, Bill and Stéphane. I think this is acceptable. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 14:27 An: William Drake Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report In the interest of clarity, I believe this is the excerpt from the blog post that Bill is referring to: Support for Needy Applicants ICANN is awaiting guidance from the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group who submitted their report directly to the Board over this past weekend. It's not clear why the GNSO was circumvented from the process, or how that will be addressed by the Board. While the ICANN Community all seem to agree there needs to be a mechanism for providing support to needy applicants, a workable solution needs to be found. I've not read the full report yet, but am hopeful. And in the interest of consensus and moving ahead with this, Jeff or anyone else, is it really such a big problem to add Bill's sentence and send the message as suggested in my latest draft? If we are worried about the fact that the Board could get the wrong idea about the report and not understand that it hasn't been approved yet, which is the rationale behind us working on this message in the first place, then it does not seem totally out of place to also address another misunderstanding that some worry might exist, does it? Even if we don't all think the misunderstanding exists. Let's not forget that some of us didn't think that the first misunderstanding (about the Board not getting the fact that the report hasn't been approved) existed and yet, they still agreed to send the message. So my suggestion is that the message as it currently stands incorporates all these varied POVs and allows us to move forwards. Thanks, Stéphane Le 23 mai 2011 à 14:17, William Drake a écrit : Hi Wolf-Ulrich On May 23, 2011, at 2:03 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote: could you please provide me with the "false information circulated"? Sorry, I forget too many things. I believe we discussed previously the fact that there were people running around saying that JAS had directly submitted its report to the Board in some sort of dastardly plot to circumvent the GNSO Council. These rumblings were then put into words on a widely read blog http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110512_icann_tiptoes_through_political_minef... which prompted Alan and other JAS members to issue corrections. I don't know whether those corrections have been widely read and internalized or if there are still people out there laboring under misunderstandings. But I would think the Council would have a self-interest in stating for the record that the process was followed and it was not dissed. Best, Bill
Tim. it is ok, As You Know the personal opinion in blogs, not necessarily are make as members of any organizacion or constituency. This was what I wanted to clarify, because it seems to me was needed. and not every NCSG members are involved in those comments. thanks Carlos Dionisio Aguirre NCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALO Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org Subject: Re: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report To: carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com; hughesdeb@usa.redcross.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; mary.wong@law.unh.edu; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; knobenw@telekom.de; william.drake@uzh.ch CC: council@gnso.icann.org From: tim@godaddy.com Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:17:56 +0000 Carlos, Was referring to Avri's posts. Assumed those were general views of NCSG. Apologize if not. But my point about what the Council is supposed to be doing remains. TimFrom: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:05:32 +0000To: <tim@godaddy.com>; <hughesdeb@usa.redcross.org>; <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>; <mary.wong@law.unh.edu>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <knobenw@telekom.de>; william Drake<william.drake@uzh.ch>Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org>Subject: RE: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Tim: I would like if you could clarify the sentence "We could likely argue for weeks about the inaccuracy of some of the NCSG comments in blogs, etc. about contracted parties" . I consider necessary determinate in a clear way the names of NCSG`s, and facts wich you mention, because you can not involve every NCSG members on this. And when you say "some" unfortunatelly you are mentioning to all. thanks Carlos Dionisio Aguirre NCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALO Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org Subject: Re: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report To: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; KnobenW@telekom.de; william.drake@uzh.ch CC: council@gnso.icann.org From: tim@godaddy.com Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:29:28 +0000 If that is our duty we will have little time for anything else. We could likely argue for weeks about the inaccuracy of some of the NCSG comments in blogs, etc. about contracted parties. Fortunately, our charge is fairly simple, manage the policy process. Let's just stick to that, please. Tim From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 10:17:33 -0400To: <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <KnobenW@telekom.de>; <william.drake@uzh.ch>Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org>Subject: RE: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Mary, I agree and support your sentiments. Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:04 AM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; KnobenW@telekom.de; william.drake@uzh.ch Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re:: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report As I'd indicated on the Council call, I believe it's our duty to correct factual misrepresentations that we know have taken place by/within the GNSO community. As such, I support sending the letter as Stephane now has it (i.e. including Bill's language). I note also that neither this version nor my earlier attempts to achieve a similar result are "NCSG positions" as such, although I believe a number of other NCSG Councilors share my view. As Jeff points out, we are not in a position to alter what ALAC/At Large did as part of their process. We are, however, obliged not to permit continued misperceptions about what happened to circulate amongst our community. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: <KnobenW@telekom.de> To: <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, <william.drake@uzh.ch> CC: <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/23/2011 9:10 AM Subject: AW: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Thanks both, Bill and Stéphane. I think this is acceptable. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 14:27 An: William Drake Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report In the interest of clarity, I believe this is the excerpt from the blog post that Bill is referring to: Support for Needy Applicants ICANN is awaiting guidance from the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group who submitted their report directly to the Board over this past weekend. It's not clear why the GNSO was circumvented from the process, or how that will be addressed by the Board. While the ICANN Community all seem to agree there needs to be a mechanism for providing support to needy applicants, a workable solution needs to be found. I've not read the full report yet, but am hopeful. And in the interest of consensus and moving ahead with this, Jeff or anyone else, is it really such a big problem to add Bill's sentence and send the message as suggested in my latest draft? If we are worried about the fact that the Board could get the wrong idea about the report and not understand that it hasn't been approved yet, which is the rationale behind us working on this message in the first place, then it does not seem totally out of place to also address another misunderstanding that some worry might exist, does it? Even if we don't all think the misunderstanding exists. Let's not forget that some of us didn't think that the first misunderstanding (about the Board not getting the fact that the report hasn't been approved) existed and yet, they still agreed to send the message. So my suggestion is that the message as it currently stands incorporates all these varied POVs and allows us to move forwards. Thanks, Stéphane Le 23 mai 2011 à 14:17, William Drake a écrit : Hi Wolf-Ulrich On May 23, 2011, at 2:03 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote: could you please provide me with the "false information circulated"? Sorry, I forget too many things. I believe we discussed previously the fact that there were people running around saying that JAS had directly submitted its report to the Board in some sort of dastardly plot to circumvent the GNSO Council. These rumblings were then put into words on a widely read blog http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110512_icann_tiptoes_through_political_minef... which prompted Alan and other JAS members to issue corrections. I don't know whether those corrections have been widely read and internalized or if there are still people out there laboring under misunderstandings. But I would think the Council would have a self-interest in stating for the record that the process was followed and it was not dissed. Best, Bill
Understood Carlos. And in the interest of putting this to bed, I am ok with Bill's suggested wording. Tim -----Original Message----- From: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:43:54 To: <tim@godaddy.com>; Debra Hughes<hughesdeb@usa.redcross.org>; <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>; <mary.wong@law.unh.edu>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <knobenw@telekom.de>; william Drake<william.drake@uzh.ch> Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Tim. it is ok, As You Know the personal opinion in blogs, not necessarily are make as members of any organizacion or constituency. This was what I wanted to clarify, because it seems to me was needed. and not every NCSG members are involved in those comments. thanks Carlos Dionisio Aguirre NCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALO Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org Subject: Re: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report To: carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com; hughesdeb@usa.redcross.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; mary.wong@law.unh.edu; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; knobenw@telekom.de; william.drake@uzh.ch CC: council@gnso.icann.org From: tim@godaddy.com Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:17:56 +0000 Carlos, Was referring to Avri's posts. Assumed those were general views of NCSG. Apologize if not. But my point about what the Council is supposed to be doing remains. TimFrom: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:05:32 +0000To: <tim@godaddy.com>; <hughesdeb@usa.redcross.org>; <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>; <mary.wong@law.unh.edu>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <knobenw@telekom.de>; william Drake<william.drake@uzh.ch>Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org>Subject: RE: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Tim: I would like if you could clarify the sentence "We could likely argue for weeks about the inaccuracy of some of the NCSG comments in blogs, etc. about contracted parties" . I consider necessary determinate in a clear way the names of NCSG`s, and facts wich you mention, because you can not involve every NCSG members on this. And when you say "some" unfortunatelly you are mentioning to all. thanks Carlos Dionisio Aguirre NCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALO Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org Subject: Re: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report To: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; KnobenW@telekom.de; william.drake@uzh.ch CC: council@gnso.icann.org From: tim@godaddy.com Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:29:28 +0000 If that is our duty we will have little time for anything else. We could likely argue for weeks about the inaccuracy of some of the NCSG comments in blogs, etc. about contracted parties. Fortunately, our charge is fairly simple, manage the policy process. Let's just stick to that, please. Tim From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 10:17:33 -0400To: <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <KnobenW@telekom.de>; <william.drake@uzh.ch>Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org>Subject: RE: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Mary, I agree and support your sentiments. Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:04 AM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; KnobenW@telekom.de; william.drake@uzh.ch Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re:: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report As I'd indicated on the Council call, I believe it's our duty to correct factual misrepresentations that we know have taken place by/within the GNSO community. As such, I support sending the letter as Stephane now has it (i.e. including Bill's language). I note also that neither this version nor my earlier attempts to achieve a similar result are "NCSG positions" as such, although I believe a number of other NCSG Councilors share my view. As Jeff points out, we are not in a position to alter what ALAC/At Large did as part of their process. We are, however, obliged not to permit continued misperceptions about what happened to circulate amongst our community. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: <KnobenW@telekom.de> To: <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, <william.drake@uzh.ch> CC: <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/23/2011 9:10 AM Subject: AW: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Thanks both, Bill and Stéphane. I think this is acceptable. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 14:27 An: William Drake Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report In the interest of clarity, I believe this is the excerpt from the blog post that Bill is referring to: Support for Needy Applicants ICANN is awaiting guidance from the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group who submitted their report directly to the Board over this past weekend. It's not clear why the GNSO was circumvented from the process, or how that will be addressed by the Board. While the ICANN Community all seem to agree there needs to be a mechanism for providing support to needy applicants, a workable solution needs to be found. I've not read the full report yet, but am hopeful. And in the interest of consensus and moving ahead with this, Jeff or anyone else, is it really such a big problem to add Bill's sentence and send the message as suggested in my latest draft? If we are worried about the fact that the Board could get the wrong idea about the report and not understand that it hasn't been approved yet, which is the rationale behind us working on this message in the first place, then it does not seem totally out of place to also address another misunderstanding that some worry might exist, does it? Even if we don't all think the misunderstanding exists. Let's not forget that some of us didn't think that the first misunderstanding (about the Board not getting the fact that the report hasn't been approved) existed and yet, they still agreed to send the message. So my suggestion is that the message as it currently stands incorporates all these varied POVs and allows us to move forwards. Thanks, Stéphane Le 23 mai 2011 à 14:17, William Drake a écrit : Hi Wolf-Ulrich On May 23, 2011, at 2:03 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote: could you please provide me with the "false information circulated"? Sorry, I forget too many things. I believe we discussed previously the fact that there were people running around saying that JAS had directly submitted its report to the Board in some sort of dastardly plot to circumvent the GNSO Council. These rumblings were then put into words on a widely read blog http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110512_icann_tiptoes_through_political_minef... which prompted Alan and other JAS members to issue corrections. I don't know whether those corrections have been widely read and internalized or if there are still people out there laboring under misunderstandings. But I would think the Council would have a self-interest in stating for the record that the process was followed and it was not dissed. Best, Bill
Thanks for that clarification Mary and for your support of the text as stated. Stéphane Le 23 mai 2011 à 16:04, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> a écrit :
As I'd indicated on the Council call, I believe it's our duty to correct factual misrepresentations that we know have taken place by/within the GNSO community. As such, I support sending the letter as Stephane now has it (i.e. including Bill's language).
I note also that neither this version nor my earlier attempts to achieve a similar result are "NCSG positions" as such, although I believe a number of other NCSG Councilors share my view.
As Jeff points out, we are not in a position to alter what ALAC/At Large did as part of their process. We are, however, obliged not to permit continued misperceptions about what happened to circulate amongst our community.
Cheers Mary
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: <KnobenW@telekom.de> To: <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, <william.drake@uzh.ch> CC: <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/23/2011 9:10 AM Subject: AW: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Thanks both, Bill and Stéphane. I think this is acceptable.
Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 14:27 An: William Drake Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
In the interest of clarity, I believe this is the excerpt from the blog post that Bill is referring to:
Support for Needy Applicants ICANN is awaiting guidance from the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group who submitted their report directly to the Board over this past weekend. It's not clear why the GNSO was circumvented from the process, or how that will be addressed by the Board. While the ICANN Community all seem to agree there needs to be a mechanism for providing support to needy applicants, a workable solution needs to be found. I've not read the full report yet, but am hopeful.
And in the interest of consensus and moving ahead with this, Jeff or anyone else, is it really such a big problem to add Bill's sentence and send the message as suggested in my latest draft?
If we are worried about the fact that the Board could get the wrong idea about the report and not understand that it hasn't been approved yet, which is the rationale behind us working on this message in the first place, then it does not seem totally out of place to also address another misunderstanding that some worry might exist, does it?
Even if we don't all think the misunderstanding exists. Let's not forget that some of us didn't think that the first misunderstanding (about the Board not getting the fact that the report hasn't been approved) existed and yet, they still agreed to send the message.
So my suggestion is that the message as it currently stands incorporates all these varied POVs and allows us to move forwards.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 23 mai 2011 à 14:17, William Drake a écrit :
Hi Wolf-Ulrich
On May 23, 2011, at 2:03 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
could you please provide me with the "false information circulated"? Sorry, I forget too many things.
I believe we discussed previously the fact that there were people running around saying that JAS had directly submitted its report to the Board in some sort of dastardly plot to circumvent the GNSO Council. These rumblings were then put into words on a widely read blog http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110512_icann_tiptoes_through_political_minef... which prompted Alan and other JAS members to issue corrections. I don't know whether those corrections have been widely read and internalized or if there are still people out there laboring under misunderstandings. But I would think the Council would have a self-interest in stating for the record that the process was followed and it was not dissed.
Best,
Bill
I really do not understand why we would have the statement recommended by Bill. That has never been the issue with the other Councilors on this list. Perhaps there was a post or two on blogs elsewhere, but that was not the concern expressed by Councilors and I do not see why we should be addressing that point. The issue for me (and some other councilors on this list) has been that the ICANN staff that supports the ALAC submitted it directly to the Board at the same time it was forwarded to the GNSO, and the ALAC formally forwarded to the board for its consideration prior to the GNSO having a chance to review it (much less approve it). As we have seen, this report is already being considered by the Board and the GAC giving the appearance that the GNSO's input into the matter is irrelevant. So the whole concern expressed by Councilors in January with the new charter about not communicating directly with the Board with the GNSO Council's input was completely circumvented by the ALAC because that was not in their version of the Charter. Granted we cannot control what is another SO's charter, but we can make sure in the future that we do not approve any CWGs where that CWG has a provision that is inconsistent with ours. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy Please note new address: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166 ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 7:43 AM To: William Drake Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report Thanks Bill. The message would then become: 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. In light of false information that has been circulated on the matter, the GNSO Council would also like to confirm that the JAS WG simultaneously submitted its Report 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 If anyone disagrees with the content of the message as stated, please say so by COB tonight so that I can send the message tomorrow as planned. Stéphane Le 23 mai 2011 à 13:16, William Drake a écrit : Hi Stéphane On May 23, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: Discussions by them of a "way forward" on a report that hasn't yet been approved by us may just be thinking ahead, or it may be that they have not cottoned on to the fact that the report hasn't yet been approved... I suspect they do understand what is plainly obvious but believe consideration of a "way forward" is necessary nonetheless. Which would be a sound conclusion, given the serious need to broaden both international participation in gTLDs and political support for ICANN. With regard to your letter, may I suggest a small and incontrovertibly factual amendment that would be entirely in keeping with your purely informational objective here? How's about adding the following: "In light of false information that has been circulated on the matter, the GNSO Council would also like to confirm that the JAS WG simultaneously submitted its Report to ALAC and the GNSO for review." This is should eliminate the NC opposition to a letter (haven't asked, but believe so). Bill
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. In light of false information that has been circulated on the matter, the GNSO Council would also like to confirm that the JAS WG simultaneously submitted its Report 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
Thanks Stephane I await the update following your 9 June meeting with interest. regards Peter Dengate Thrush Chairman of the Board of Directors, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers +64 4 4998959 (DDI) +64 21499888 (mobile) On 26/05/2011, at 9:50 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
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.
In light of false information that has been circulated on the matter, the GNSO Council would also like to confirm that the JAS WG simultaneously submitted its Report 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
Peter, At its June 9 2011 meeting, the GNSO Council voted unanimously to approve a motion made by Rafik Dammak and seconded by Andrei Kolesnikov and pertaining to the JAS Milestone Report. Please follow this link for a copy of the motion that was considered (motion 2): https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+June+2011 and this link to read the notification sent by the GNSO secretariat of the motions passed at our June 9 meeting : http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg11536.html Best, Stéphane Le 16 juin 2011 à 07:01, Peter Dengate Thrush a écrit :
Thanks Stephane
I await the update following your 9 June meeting with interest.
regards
Peter Dengate Thrush Chairman of the Board of Directors, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
+64 4 4998959 (DDI) +64 21499888 (mobile)
On 26/05/2011, at 9:50 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
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.
In light of false information that has been circulated on the matter, the GNSO Council would also like to confirm that the JAS WG simultaneously submitted its Report 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
participants (10)
-
carlos dionisio aguirre -
HughesDeb＠usa.redcross.org -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu -
Neuman, Jeff -
Peter Dengate Thrush -
Rafik Dammak -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
tim＠godaddy.com -
William Drake