Draft message to the Board
Councillors, In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board. Thanks, Stéphane Dear Peter, On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011. As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it. I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
Hi Stéphane, my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling. Could you please clarify "unanimous support"? Many thanks and regards Olga 2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
Councillors,
In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Dear Peter,
On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC.
The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011.
As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it.
I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
Olga, Maybe I can help, I believe SVG means that, of all the responses to the list so far, all have agreed with my statement and request to send a letter to the Board. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:09 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hi Stéphane, my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling. Could you please clarify "unanimous support"? Many thanks and regards Olga 2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Councillors, In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board. Thanks, Stéphane Dear Peter, On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011. As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it. I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
Hi, Should we have a vote on this? I do not understand why we have to rush, could some one clarify this to me? Best Olga 2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
Olga,
Maybe I can help, I believe SVG means that, of all the responses to the list so far, all have agreed with my statement and request to send a letter to the Board.
*Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Olga Cavalli *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:09 PM *To:* Stéphane Van Gelder
*Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org GNSO *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
Hi Stéphane, my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling. Could you please clarify "unanimous support"? Many thanks and regards Olga
2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
Councillors,
In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Dear Peter,
On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC.
The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011.
As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it.
I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
GNSO Council Chair
We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG. It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council. These are facts. Why can't they be stated? Adrian Kinderis From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:23 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hi, Should we have a vote on this? I do not understand why we have to rush, could some one clarify this to me? Best Olga 2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> Olga, Maybe I can help, I believe SVG means that, of all the responses to the list so far, all have agreed with my statement and request to send a letter to the Board. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:09 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hi Stéphane, my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling. Could you please clarify "unanimous support"? Many thanks and regards Olga 2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Councillors, In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board. Thanks, Stéphane Dear Peter, On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011. As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it. I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
I think we should follow a procedure that contemplates all councillor´s opinions. Still not see the point for rushing regards Olga 2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG.
It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council.
These are facts. Why can’t they be stated?
*Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:23 PM *To:* Adrian Kinderis *Cc:* Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO
*Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
Hi, Should we have a vote on this? I do not understand why we have to rush, could some one clarify this to me? Best Olga
2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
Olga,
Maybe I can help, I believe SVG means that, of all the responses to the list so far, all have agreed with my statement and request to send a letter to the Board.
*Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Olga Cavalli *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:09 PM *To:* Stéphane Van Gelder
*Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org GNSO
*Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
Hi Stéphane, my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling. Could you please clarify "unanimous support"? Many thanks and regards Olga
2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
Councillors,
In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Dear Peter,
On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC.
The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011.
As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it.
I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
GNSO Council Chair
Are you disputing the facts or the need to send something to the Board? Adrian Kinderis From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:30 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board I think we should follow a procedure that contemplates all councillor´s opinions. Still not see the point for rushing regards Olga 2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG. It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council. These are facts. Why can't they be stated? Adrian Kinderis From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:23 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hi, Should we have a vote on this? I do not understand why we have to rush, could some one clarify this to me? Best Olga 2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> Olga, Maybe I can help, I believe SVG means that, of all the responses to the list so far, all have agreed with my statement and request to send a letter to the Board. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:09 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hi Stéphane, my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling. Could you please clarify "unanimous support"? Many thanks and regards Olga 2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Councillors, In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board. Thanks, Stéphane Dear Peter, On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011. As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it. I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
I believe there's urgency because the Board may not understand that (a) the GNSO Council just got the report; and (b) hasn't reviewed it, let alone approved it. If the Board acts on the report without knowing those (IMHO, very important) facts, they are acting on incomplete information. If there's an issue getting consensus on this point (and I don't understand why there would be), I'm happy to ask IPC leadership to support my sending SVG's statement to the Board as a statement from the IPC, and other constituencies/SGs can follow suit - or not. K ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 6:30 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board I think we should follow a procedure that contemplates all councillor´s opinions. Still not see the point for rushing regards Olga 2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG. It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council. These are facts. Why can't they be stated? Adrian Kinderis From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:23 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hi, Should we have a vote on this? I do not understand why we have to rush, could some one clarify this to me? Best Olga 2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> Olga, Maybe I can help, I believe SVG means that, of all the responses to the list so far, all have agreed with my statement and request to send a letter to the Board. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:09 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hi Stéphane, my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling. Could you please clarify "unanimous support"? Many thanks and regards Olga 2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Councillors, In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board. Thanks, Stéphane Dear Peter, On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011. As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it. I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
The Registrar SG support SVG's statement. Adrian Kinderis From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:47 PM To: 'Olga Cavalli'; Adrian Kinderis Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Draft message to the Board I believe there's urgency because the Board may not understand that (a) the GNSO Council just got the report; and (b) hasn't reviewed it, let alone approved it. If the Board acts on the report without knowing those (IMHO, very important) facts, they are acting on incomplete information. If there's an issue getting consensus on this point (and I don't understand why there would be), I'm happy to ask IPC leadership to support my sending SVG's statement to the Board as a statement from the IPC, and other constituencies/SGs can follow suit - or not. K ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 6:30 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board I think we should follow a procedure that contemplates all councillor´s opinions. Still not see the point for rushing regards Olga 2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG. It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council. These are facts. Why can't they be stated? Adrian Kinderis From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:23 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hi, Should we have a vote on this? I do not understand why we have to rush, could some one clarify this to me? Best Olga 2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> Olga, Maybe I can help, I believe SVG means that, of all the responses to the list so far, all have agreed with my statement and request to send a letter to the Board. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:09 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hi Stéphane, my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling. Could you please clarify "unanimous support"? Many thanks and regards Olga 2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Councillors, In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board. Thanks, Stéphane Dear Peter, On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011. As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it. I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
This has already been the subject of discussion on the RySG list and we are very concerned about the state of affairs. We are set to discuss it tomorrow as part of our regular meeting. I personally support the message to the Board. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Vice President, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 06:46 PM To: 'Olga Cavalli' <olgacavalli@gmail.com>; Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft message to the Board I believe there's urgency because the Board may not understand that (a) the GNSO Council just got the report; and (b) hasn't reviewed it, let alone approved it. If the Board acts on the report without knowing those (IMHO, very important) facts, they are acting on incomplete information. If there's an issue getting consensus on this point (and I don't understand why there would be), I'm happy to ask IPC leadership to support my sending SVG's statement to the Board as a statement from the IPC, and other constituencies/SGs can follow suit - or not. K ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 6:30 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board I think we should follow a procedure that contemplates all councillor´s opinions. Still not see the point for rushing regards Olga 2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG. It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council. These are facts. Why can’t they be stated? Adrian Kinderis From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:23 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hi, Should we have a vote on this? I do not understand why we have to rush, could some one clarify this to me? Best Olga 2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> Olga, Maybe I can help, I believe SVG means that, of all the responses to the list so far, all have agreed with my statement and request to send a letter to the Board. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:09 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hi Stéphane, my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling. Could you please clarify "unanimous support"? Many thanks and regards Olga 2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Councillors, In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board. Thanks, Stéphane Dear Peter, On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011. As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it. I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
Hello, @Adrian I puzzled with you claiming that " report was sent directly to the board from the WG", that is false claim and fact, the WG only sent the report to (in 8th and not 9th as it is written in the draft letter) its chartering organizations and explained that clearly in my message to Stephane, so there is no need to rush if you assumed the former. I am also going to submit a motion soon for GNSO council consideration. I agree with Olga that there is no unanimous support and we need to vote on that. Regards Rafik 2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG.
It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council.
These are facts. Why can’t they be stated?
*Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:23 PM *To:* Adrian Kinderis *Cc:* Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO
*Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
Hi, Should we have a vote on this? I do not understand why we have to rush, could some one clarify this to me? Best Olga
2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
Olga,
Maybe I can help, I believe SVG means that, of all the responses to the list so far, all have agreed with my statement and request to send a letter to the Board.
*Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Olga Cavalli *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:09 PM *To:* Stéphane Van Gelder
*Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org GNSO
*Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
Hi Stéphane, my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling. Could you please clarify "unanimous support"? Many thanks and regards Olga
2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
Councillors,
In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Dear Peter,
On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC.
The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011.
As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it.
I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
GNSO Council Chair
How did the Board get the report? Also, SUMMARY This report is submitted to the Board and is currently undergoing ALAC ratification. Adrian Kinderis From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:38 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Olga Cavalli; Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hello, @Adrian I puzzled with you claiming that " report was sent directly to the board from the WG", that is false claim and fact, the WG only sent the report to (in 8th and not 9th as it is written in the draft letter) its chartering organizations and explained that clearly in my message to Stephane, so there is no need to rush if you assumed the former. I am also going to submit a motion soon for GNSO council consideration. I agree with Olga that there is no unanimous support and we need to vote on that. Regards Rafik 2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG. It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council. These are facts. Why can’t they be stated? Adrian Kinderis From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:23 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hi, Should we have a vote on this? I do not understand why we have to rush, could some one clarify this to me? Best Olga 2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> Olga, Maybe I can help, I believe SVG means that, of all the responses to the list so far, all have agreed with my statement and request to send a letter to the Board. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:09 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hi Stéphane, my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling. Could you please clarify "unanimous support"? Many thanks and regards Olga 2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Councillors, In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board. Thanks, Stéphane Dear Peter, On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011. As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it. I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
you mean the message from ALAC? Rafik Dammak Twitter: @rafik Linkedin: http://tn.linkedin.com/in/rafikdammak 2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
How did the Board get the report?
Also,
*SUMMARY *
This report is submitted to the Board and is currently undergoing ALAC ratification.
*Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:38 PM *To:* Adrian Kinderis *Cc:* Olga Cavalli; Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO
*Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
Hello,
@Adrian I puzzled with you claiming that " report was sent directly to the board from the WG", that is false claim and fact, the WG only sent the report to (in 8th and not 9th as it is written in the draft letter) its chartering organizations and explained that clearly in my message to Stephane, so there is no need to rush if you assumed the former.
I am also going to submit a motion soon for GNSO council consideration.
I agree with Olga that there is no unanimous support and we need to vote on that.
Regards
Rafik
2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG.
It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council.
These are facts. Why can’t they be stated?
*Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:23 PM *To:* Adrian Kinderis *Cc:* Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO
*Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
Hi, Should we have a vote on this? I do not understand why we have to rush, could some one clarify this to me? Best Olga
2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
Olga,
Maybe I can help, I believe SVG means that, of all the responses to the list so far, all have agreed with my statement and request to send a letter to the Board.
*Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Olga Cavalli *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:09 PM *To:* Stéphane Van Gelder
*Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org GNSO
*Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
Hi Stéphane, my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling. Could you please clarify "unanimous support"? Many thanks and regards Olga
2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
Councillors,
In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Dear Peter,
On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC.
The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011.
As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it.
I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
GNSO Council Chair
Just as the ccNSO objected to us sending the JIG report to the Board without their approval, I object to the ALAC's sending of the report to the Board without our review and approval. Again, we have to get the rules straight on how Cross-Working Groups operate. We have lost complete control and until such time as we figure out the rules, I cannot be in favor of the creation of any future cross working groups no matter how well intentioned they are meant to be. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Vice President, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 06:50 PM To: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Cc: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com>; Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board you mean the message from ALAC? Rafik Dammak Twitter: @rafik Linkedin: http://tn.linkedin.com/in/rafikdammak 2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> How did the Board get the report? Also, SUMMARY This report is submitted to the Board and is currently undergoing ALAC ratification. Adrian Kinderis From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:38 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Olga Cavalli; Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hello, @Adrian I puzzled with you claiming that " report was sent directly to the board from the WG", that is false claim and fact, the WG only sent the report to (in 8th and not 9th as it is written in the draft letter) its chartering organizations and explained that clearly in my message to Stephane, so there is no need to rush if you assumed the former. I am also going to submit a motion soon for GNSO council consideration. I agree with Olga that there is no unanimous support and we need to vote on that. Regards Rafik 2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG. It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council. These are facts. Why can’t they be stated? Adrian Kinderis From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:23 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hi, Should we have a vote on this? I do not understand why we have to rush, could some one clarify this to me? Best Olga 2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> Olga, Maybe I can help, I believe SVG means that, of all the responses to the list so far, all have agreed with my statement and request to send a letter to the Board. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:09 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hi Stéphane, my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling. Could you please clarify "unanimous support"? Many thanks and regards Olga 2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Councillors, In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board. Thanks, Stéphane Dear Peter, On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011. As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it. I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
+1 Adrian Kinderis Chief Executive Officer AusRegistry International Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistry.com<http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> - Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ausregistryint<http://www.twitter.com/ausregistryint> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:56 PM To: 'rafik.dammak@gmail.com'; Adrian Kinderis Cc: 'olgacavalli@gmail.com'; 'stephane.vangelder@indom.com'; 'council@gnso.icann.org' Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Just as the ccNSO objected to us sending the JIG report to the Board without their approval, I object to the ALAC's sending of the report to the Board without our review and approval. Again, we have to get the rules straight on how Cross-Working Groups operate. We have lost complete control and until such time as we figure out the rules, I cannot be in favor of the creation of any future cross working groups no matter how well intentioned they are meant to be. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Vice President, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 06:50 PM To: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Cc: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com>; Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board you mean the message from ALAC? Rafik Dammak Twitter: @rafik Linkedin: http://tn.linkedin.com/in/rafikdammak 2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> How did the Board get the report? Also, SUMMARY This report is submitted to the Board and is currently undergoing ALAC ratification. Adrian Kinderis From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:38 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Olga Cavalli; Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hello, @Adrian I puzzled with you claiming that " report was sent directly to the board from the WG", that is false claim and fact, the WG only sent the report to (in 8th and not 9th as it is written in the draft letter) its chartering organizations and explained that clearly in my message to Stephane, so there is no need to rush if you assumed the former. I am also going to submit a motion soon for GNSO council consideration. I agree with Olga that there is no unanimous support and we need to vote on that. Regards Rafik 2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG. It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council. These are facts. Why can’t they be stated? Adrian Kinderis From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:23 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hi, Should we have a vote on this? I do not understand why we have to rush, could some one clarify this to me? Best Olga 2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> Olga, Maybe I can help, I believe SVG means that, of all the responses to the list so far, all have agreed with my statement and request to send a letter to the Board. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:09 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hi Stéphane, my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling. Could you please clarify "unanimous support"? Many thanks and regards Olga 2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Councillors, In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board. Thanks, Stéphane Dear Peter, On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011. As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it. I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
Let me be clear. Rafik, how did the JAS report get in the hands of the ICANN Board? The rest of my email was copied and pasted from the report stating that the report is submitted to the Board from the WG, not to the GNSO or ALAC. Adrian Kinderis Chief Executive Officer AusRegistry International Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistry.com<http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> - Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ausregistryint<http://www.twitter.com/ausregistryint> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:51 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Olga Cavalli; Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board you mean the message from ALAC? Rafik Dammak Twitter: @rafik Linkedin: http://tn.linkedin.com/in/rafikdammak 2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> How did the Board get the report? Also, SUMMARY This report is submitted to the Board and is currently undergoing ALAC ratification. Adrian Kinderis From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:38 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Olga Cavalli; Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hello, @Adrian I puzzled with you claiming that " report was sent directly to the board from the WG", that is false claim and fact, the WG only sent the report to (in 8th and not 9th as it is written in the draft letter) its chartering organizations and explained that clearly in my message to Stephane, so there is no need to rush if you assumed the former. I am also going to submit a motion soon for GNSO council consideration. I agree with Olga that there is no unanimous support and we need to vote on that. Regards Rafik 2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG. It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council. These are facts. Why can’t they be stated? Adrian Kinderis From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:23 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hi, Should we have a vote on this? I do not understand why we have to rush, could some one clarify this to me? Best Olga 2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> Olga, Maybe I can help, I believe SVG means that, of all the responses to the list so far, all have agreed with my statement and request to send a letter to the Board. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:09 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board Hi Stéphane, my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling. Could you please clarify "unanimous support"? Many thanks and regards Olga 2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Councillors, In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board. Thanks, Stéphane Dear Peter, On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011. As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it. I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
not sure which email are you talking about, can you forward or copy-paste it, read again please carefully the email forwarded by Stephane, form which I copied the first part "The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Second Milestone Report by the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG) (attached). We request that this Report be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Boad", that is at-large, not the WG which sent the report to the ICANN board. Rafik 2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
Let me be clear.
Rafik, how did the JAS report get in the hands of the ICANN Board?
The rest of my email was copied and pasted from the report stating that the report is submitted to the Board from the WG, not to the GNSO or ALAC.
*Adrian Kinderis* Chief Executive Officer
AusRegistry International Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com Web: www.ausregistry.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/>
- Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ausregistryint
The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.
*From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:51 PM
*To:* Adrian Kinderis *Cc:* Olga Cavalli; Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
you mean the message from ALAC?
Rafik Dammak
Twitter: @rafik
Linkedin: http://tn.linkedin.com/in/rafikdammak
2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
How did the Board get the report?
Also,
*SUMMARY *
This report is submitted to the Board and is currently undergoing ALAC ratification.
*Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:38 PM *To:* Adrian Kinderis *Cc:* Olga Cavalli; Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO
*Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
Hello,
@Adrian I puzzled with you claiming that " report was sent directly to the board from the WG", that is false claim and fact, the WG only sent the report to (in 8th and not 9th as it is written in the draft letter) its chartering organizations and explained that clearly in my message to Stephane, so there is no need to rush if you assumed the former.
I am also going to submit a motion soon for GNSO council consideration.
I agree with Olga that there is no unanimous support and we need to vote on that.
Regards
Rafik
2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG.
It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council.
These are facts. Why can’t they be stated?
*Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:23 PM *To:* Adrian Kinderis *Cc:* Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO
*Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
Hi, Should we have a vote on this? I do not understand why we have to rush, could some one clarify this to me? Best Olga
2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
Olga,
Maybe I can help, I believe SVG means that, of all the responses to the list so far, all have agreed with my statement and request to send a letter to the Board.
*Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Olga Cavalli *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:09 PM *To:* Stéphane Van Gelder
*Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org GNSO
*Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
Hi Stéphane, my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling. Could you please clarify "unanimous support"? Many thanks and regards Olga
2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
Councillors,
In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Dear Peter,
On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC.
The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011.
As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it.
I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
GNSO Council Chair
Seems we are splitting hairs here. The point is the Board has the report. The message Adrian proposed and drafted by Stephane states only facts not opinions or. Iews. I don't see any issue with transmitting it without a formal vote. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 08:05:01 To: Adrian Kinderis<adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Cc: Olga Cavalli<olgacavalli@gmail.com>; Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO<council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board not sure which email are you talking about, can you forward or copy-paste it, read again please carefully the email forwarded by Stephane, form which I copied the first part "The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Second Milestone Report by the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG) (attached). We request that this Report be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Boad", that is at-large, not the WG which sent the report to the ICANN board. Rafik 2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
Let me be clear.
Rafik, how did the JAS report get in the hands of the ICANN Board?
The rest of my email was copied and pasted from the report stating that the report is submitted to the Board from the WG, not to the GNSO or ALAC.
*Adrian Kinderis* Chief Executive Officer
AusRegistry International Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com Web: www.ausregistry.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/>
- Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ausregistryint
The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.
*From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:51 PM
*To:* Adrian Kinderis *Cc:* Olga Cavalli; Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
you mean the message from ALAC?
Rafik Dammak
Twitter: @rafik
Linkedin: http://tn.linkedin.com/in/rafikdammak
2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
How did the Board get the report?
Also,
*SUMMARY *
This report is submitted to the Board and is currently undergoing ALAC ratification.
*Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:38 PM *To:* Adrian Kinderis *Cc:* Olga Cavalli; Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO
*Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
Hello,
@Adrian I puzzled with you claiming that " report was sent directly to the board from the WG", that is false claim and fact, the WG only sent the report to (in 8th and not 9th as it is written in the draft letter) its chartering organizations and explained that clearly in my message to Stephane, so there is no need to rush if you assumed the former.
I am also going to submit a motion soon for GNSO council consideration.
I agree with Olga that there is no unanimous support and we need to vote on that.
Regards
Rafik
2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG.
It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council.
These are facts. Why can’t they be stated?
*Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:23 PM *To:* Adrian Kinderis *Cc:* Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO
*Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
Hi, Should we have a vote on this? I do not understand why we have to rush, could some one clarify this to me? Best Olga
2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
Olga,
Maybe I can help, I believe SVG means that, of all the responses to the list so far, all have agreed with my statement and request to send a letter to the Board.
*Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Olga Cavalli *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:09 PM *To:* Stéphane Van Gelder
*Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org GNSO
*Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
Hi Stéphane, my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling. Could you please clarify "unanimous support"? Many thanks and regards Olga
2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
Councillors,
In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Dear Peter,
On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC.
The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011.
As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it.
I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
GNSO Council Chair
Hello On May 11, 2011, at 12:25 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG.
Not true
It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council.
These are facts. Why can’t they be stated?
Haven't they been already, more or less? Olivier's cover texts says This Report is submitted [BY ALAC] for consideration to the ICANN Board and ICANN community. It was received by the At‐Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 6 May 2011 and is currently undergoing evaluation. Comments from the At‐ Large Community are currently being gathered until 13 May 2011 and will be transmitted to the Board in a separate document. ALAC ratification will follow. Note that GNSO approval of this document is independent and has not reached approval stage. Whereas Stephane's proposed note says On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011. Aside from the discrepancy on the receipt date, the letter seems redundant with what they've already been told. So what exactly is the point of repeating it: to double check that board are able to correctly read plain English, or rather to implicitly flag the general disposition of some councilors toward the work of the group we chartered, and toward CWGs more generally? NCUC at least would like to understand what we'd be doing here and why so that we can consult and reach a position per normal procedures. As is, there's no consensus to send this text now. Thanks, Bil;
Thanks Bill. There's been so much email traffic on this during what was, for me at any rate, the night, that I may not be able to address all the points raised. I apologise in advance and would ask anyone who feels that I have missed something important to put me straight. On the statement itself, the reason as I have understood it from the comments made is that the report as sent by ALAC does not indicate in a way that is sufficiently clear that this report has neither been approved by ALAC or the GNSO. My understanding is that people thought this situation (a joint WG report is sent but has not been approved by either charters) to be weird enough to warrant a statement from us to the Board. So I drafted the statement to try and move things forward. Although now there is clearly no full consensus on the statement as it stands, I do sense majority support for it. The WG guidelines talk of Rough Consensus (a position where a small minority disagrees but most agree) and my sense is that this is what we have here. The Council has at times made statements with the caveat that some groups did not support, and this could be a way forward here. So far, if my count is correct (and once again please put me straight if it's not), we have support for the statement from Council reps of the IPC, the ISP, the BC, the RySG and the RrSG. So if the NCUC opposes (is that the case?), we could send a statement saying the NCUC opposes, and that there is Rough Consensus on the Council for this statement. Does this sound reasonable? On your comments to the current draft, I understand the dates discrepancy you highlight. It does pose a problem however, as the date I had put in the draft was the one on which the JAS sent us the report. As you correctly point out, ALAC sent it on May 6, while we only got it on May 9. That in itself is a problem, as it begs the question as to why one chartering entity got the report before the other did. As Jeff stated, this looks a lot like the situation we've just had with the ccNSO and the JIG. So trying to learn from our mistakes here, I had not wanted to get into that with our Board statement, but if you think we should, we can... Stéphane Le 11 mai 2011 à 09:16, William Drake a écrit :
Hello
On May 11, 2011, at 12:25 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG.
Not true
It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council.
These are facts. Why can’t they be stated?
Haven't they been already, more or less? Olivier's cover texts says
This Report is submitted [BY ALAC] for consideration to the ICANN Board and ICANN community. It was received by the At‐Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 6 May 2011 and is currently undergoing evaluation. Comments from the At‐ Large Community are currently being gathered until 13 May 2011 and will be transmitted to the Board in a separate document. ALAC ratification will follow. Note that GNSO approval of this document is independent and has not reached approval stage.
Whereas Stephane's proposed note says
On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC.
The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011.
Aside from the discrepancy on the receipt date, the letter seems redundant with what they've already been told. So what exactly is the point of repeating it: to double check that board are able to correctly read plain English, or rather to implicitly flag the general disposition of some councilors toward the work of the group we chartered, and toward CWGs more generally?
NCUC at least would like to understand what we'd be doing here and why so that we can consult and reach a position per normal procedures. As is, there's no consensus to send this text now.
Thanks,
Bil;
HI S
So far, if my count is correct (and once again please put me straight if it's not), we have support for the statement from Council reps of the IPC, the ISP, the BC, the RySG and the RrSG. So if the NCUC opposes (is that the case?)
I didn't say we oppose yet, but rather that in reviewing it to come to a position we would like to understand the thinking as to why this is necessary, given Olivier's already included a disclaimer on exactly the same points. If we're adding distinctive value by repeating the case, what exactly is it?
we could send a statement saying the NCUC opposes, and that there is Rough Consensus on the Council for this statement.
Does this sound reasonable?
Neither would strike me as being particularly accurate at this time. We want to understand the purpose of the letter and don't see the need to rush this off before we're able to consult internally. Moreover, Olga has also expressed concerns about rushing and asked whether a vote isn't needed. So if you have perhaps 5 out of 20 voting members (maybe more, we've not heard from other NCSGer) who are not yet prepared to send such a letter, that doesn't quite meet a healthy threshold for declaring "rough consensus" based on "the sense of the group."
On your comments to the current draft, I understand the dates discrepancy you highlight. It does pose a problem however, as the date I had put in the draft was the one on which the JAS sent us the report. As you correctly point out, ALAC sent it on May 6, while we only got it on May 9. That in itself is a problem, as it begs the question as to why one chartering entity got the report before the other did. As Jeff stated, this looks a lot like the situation we've just had with the ccNSO and the JIG. So trying to learn from our mistakes here, I had not wanted to get into that with our Board statement, but if you think we should, we can…
Could avoid the issue by not referencing dates at all…? What matters is neither side's had time yet read and approve it, as Olivier indicated. Cheers, Bill PS; In the meanwhile I see Rafik has submitted a motion...
Le 11 mai 2011 à 09:16, William Drake a écrit :
Hello
On May 11, 2011, at 12:25 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG.
Not true
It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council.
These are facts. Why can’t they be stated?
Haven't they been already, more or less? Olivier's cover texts says
This Report is submitted [BY ALAC] for consideration to the ICANN Board and ICANN community. It was received by the At‐Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 6 May 2011 and is currently undergoing evaluation. Comments from the At‐ Large Community are currently being gathered until 13 May 2011 and will be transmitted to the Board in a separate document. ALAC ratification will follow. Note that GNSO approval of this document is independent and has not reached approval stage.
Whereas Stephane's proposed note says
On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC.
The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011.
Aside from the discrepancy on the receipt date, the letter seems redundant with what they've already been told. So what exactly is the point of repeating it: to double check that board are able to correctly read plain English, or rather to implicitly flag the general disposition of some councilors toward the work of the group we chartered, and toward CWGs more generally?
NCUC at least would like to understand what we'd be doing here and why so that we can consult and reach a position per normal procedures. As is, there's no consensus to send this text now.
Thanks,
Bil;
Regarding timing of the report versions: A message pointing to the first official copy of the report from the WG on the Wiki went to the Chairs of the ALAC and GNSO sent by Rafik at 23:51 UTC on Saturday, May 7. A copy in PDF format went to the two Chairs, sent by Carlton at 02:01 UTC on Sun May 8 and was then forwarded to Council. Note that Rafik and Carlton are the Co-chairs of the WG. The ALAC report to the Board went to the Chair of the GNSO, sent by the Chair of the ALAC at 08:57 on Tuesday, May 10 and was then forwarded to Council (that presumes I read my time zones correctly. It was time-stamped 10:57 HAEC). This version corrected a number of typos and added a cover letter and summary. Some members of At-Large and the ALAC, including the Chair, had earlier versions of the report since they either participated in the WG or watched its progress. The same can be said of the GNSO and the GNSO Council. If I got any of the time-zone conversions wrong, please let me know. Alan At 11/05/2011 05:36 AM, Stephane Van Gelder wrote:
[text omitted] On your comments to the current draft, I understand the dates discrepancy you highlight. It does pose a problem however, as the date I had put in the draft was the one on which the JAS sent us the report. As you correctly point out, ALAC sent it on May 6, while we only got it on May 9. That in itself is a problem, as it begs the question as to why one chartering entity got the report before the other did. As Jeff stated, this looks a lot like the situation we've just had with the ccNSO and the JIG. So trying to learn from our mistakes here, I had not wanted to get into that with our Board statement, but if you think we should, we can...
Stephane
Hi, I am not sure the time argument is worth spending that much time on, but if it helps I can confirm that I got Rafik's message at 1:51 on May 8 (French time), which in UTC is the time Alan gives. The time given for Carlton's message is also correct. I should add that in his message, Rafik also gave me a heads-up that he would be proposing a motion. I responded to Rafik on the same day, a few hours later. I then forwarded ALAC's message to the Board to the Council list, and asked Glen to post the report on the Council website (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/). Thanks, Stéphane Le 11 mai 2011 à 16:52, Alan Greenberg a écrit :
Regarding timing of the report versions:
A message pointing to the first official copy of the report from the WG on the Wiki went to the Chairs of the ALAC and GNSO sent by Rafik at 23:51 UTC on Saturday, May 7.
A copy in PDF format went to the two Chairs, sent by Carlton at 02:01 UTC on Sun May 8 and was then forwarded to Council.
Note that Rafik and Carlton are the Co-chairs of the WG.
The ALAC report to the Board went to the Chair of the GNSO, sent by the Chair of the ALAC at 08:57 on Tuesday, May 10 and was then forwarded to Council (that presumes I read my time zones correctly. It was time-stamped 10:57 HAEC). This version corrected a number of typos and added a cover letter and summary.
Some members of At-Large and the ALAC, including the Chair, had earlier versions of the report since they either participated in the WG or watched its progress. The same can be said of the GNSO and the GNSO Council.
If I got any of the time-zone conversions wrong, please let me know.
Alan
At 11/05/2011 05:36 AM, Stephane Van Gelder wrote:
[text omitted] On your comments to the current draft, I understand the dates discrepancy you highlight. It does pose a problem however, as the date I had put in the draft was the one on which the JAS sent us the report. As you correctly point out, ALAC sent it on May 6, while we only got it on May 9. That in itself is a problem, as it begs the question as to why one chartering entity got the report before the other did. As Jeff stated, this looks a lot like the situation we've just had with the ccNSO and the JIG. So trying to learn from our mistakes here, I had not wanted to get into that with our Board statement, but if you think we should, we can...
Stephane
Sure Olga. That sentence meant that at the time of writing, all the comments received were in support. Hope that helps. Stéphane Le 11 mai 2011 à 00:08, Olga Cavalli a écrit :
Hi Stéphane, my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling. Could you please clarify "unanimous support"? Many thanks and regards Olga
2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Councillors,
In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Dear Peter,
On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC.
The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011.
As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it.
I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
I understand the major concern with the process that ALAC (staff) did provide the report to the board is - and that's my concern as well - that the board may be mislead in assuming they could act upon. Since this is not the case our message should clearly point it out by saying: "This report - not yet approved by both chartering organizations (ALAC and GNSO) - is for information only and not intended to initiate any board action." I think such or a similar statement should be supported by ALAC, too. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Mai 2011 21:44 An: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Betreff: [council] Draft message to the Board Councillors, In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board. Thanks, Stéphane Dear Peter, On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011. As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it. I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
Hi all, I've tried to make a note of the comments so far and adapt my draft as required. I've taken the references to the dates out and added Wolf's suggested sentence. Please let me know what you think. Stéphane Dear Peter, The Board has received the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report which was sent to it by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it. This report is for information purposes only and not intended to initiate any Board action at this time. I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
I agree and support Tim's note with regard to the Chair's ability to communicate facts towards the board Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2011 14:59 An: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Betreff: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board Hi all, I've tried to make a note of the comments so far and adapt my draft as required. I've taken the references to the dates out and added Wolf's suggested sentence. Please let me know what you think. Stéphane Dear Peter, The Board has received the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report which was sent to it by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it. This report is for information purposes only and not intended to initiate any Board action at this time. I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair
participants (10)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Alan Greenberg -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Neuman, Jeff -
Olga Cavalli -
Rafik Dammak -
Rosette, Kristina -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
tim＠godaddy.com -
William Drake