RE: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board
Looks good to me. If there is opposition to sending that message then I suggest a revised message like this: ---------- 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. I understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. I wish to highlight the fact that the GNSO Council has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The GNSO is one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG and I am 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 believe 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 this message to the Board. Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair --------- Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 7:58 am To: "council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> 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
Thanks Tim and Wolf for your comments. The message as redrafted by Tim is clearly one that would be sent by me as Chair having identified what I think is information that the Board should have. The message contains no opinions, only statements of facts. It does not commit the Council in any direction, does not interfere with the work that the JAS has been tasked with doing, does not defend one position against another. I would be happy to send such a reworded message, as I honestly believe there considering the way this report is being presented to the Board, it's best to ensure the information the Board has is as complete and unambiguous as possible. However, I also do realise that this is an important topic for the NCSG. I am elected by all of you and do not wish for my personal actions to be considered by one group to be not taking sufficient account of their worries or issues. Bill, you said in your last message that the NCSG did not oppose this, but would like to understand the value of doing this. I believe that this has already been answered. But perhaps the rationale I would have in sending the redrafted message Tim suggest as stated in the first part this email helps clarify further. Please let me know what you, and other NCSG Councillors, think. You make the point that sending this message is useless because Olivier has already indicated in his message that the report hasn't been approved by the GNSO. I would ask you, even if that's the case and people felt confident that this message was stated clearly enough (which doesn't seem to be the case), what would be the harm in re-enphasising the same message? As long as the message itself doesn't change, and I am not saying anything different in my note, what would be the harm? Thanks, Stéphane Le 11 mai 2011 à 15:15, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
Looks good to me. If there is opposition to sending that message then I suggest a revised message like this:
---------- 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. I understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC.
I wish to highlight the fact that the GNSO Council has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it.
The GNSO is one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG and I am 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 believe 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 this message to the Board.
Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair ---------
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 7:58 am To: "council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
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 support Tim's redraft (and Stephane's too, for that matter). -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 9:50 AM To: Tim Ruiz Cc: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board Thanks Tim and Wolf for your comments. The message as redrafted by Tim is clearly one that would be sent by me as Chair having identified what I think is information that the Board should have. The message contains no opinions, only statements of facts. It does not commit the Council in any direction, does not interfere with the work that the JAS has been tasked with doing, does not defend one position against another. I would be happy to send such a reworded message, as I honestly believe there considering the way this report is being presented to the Board, it's best to ensure the information the Board has is as complete and unambiguous as possible. However, I also do realise that this is an important topic for the NCSG. I am elected by all of you and do not wish for my personal actions to be considered by one group to be not taking sufficient account of their worries or issues. Bill, you said in your last message that the NCSG did not oppose this, but would like to understand the value of doing this. I believe that this has already been answered. But perhaps the rationale I would have in sending the redrafted message Tim suggest as stated in the first part this email helps clarify further. Please let me know what you, and other NCSG Councillors, think. You make the point that sending this message is useless because Olivier has already indicated in his message that the report hasn't been approved by the GNSO. I would ask you, even if that's the case and people felt confident that this message was stated clearly enough (which doesn't seem to be the case), what would be the harm in re-enphasising the same message? As long as the message itself doesn't change, and I am not saying anything different in my note, what would be the harm? Thanks, Stéphane Le 11 mai 2011 à 15:15, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
Looks good to me. If there is opposition to sending that message then I suggest a revised message like this:
---------- 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. I understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC.
I wish to highlight the fact that the GNSO Council has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it.
The GNSO is one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG and I am 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 believe 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 this message to the Board.
Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair ---------
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 7:58 am To: "council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
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
+1 ..... and we do not need to vote on this (agree on Tim's previous note). On the side note, Stéphane I'd like to reiterate that JIG motion is not a "mistake" but a good lesson learned. In fact as many have gradually learned that two SOs are really on separate track of development and we sort out with great communication between Lesley and you. I owe you / the Council a draft statement and am working on it. Ching On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Rosette, Kristina <krosette@cov.com> wrote:
I support Tim's redraft (and Stephane's too, for that matter).
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 9:50 AM To: Tim Ruiz Cc: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board
Thanks Tim and Wolf for your comments.
The message as redrafted by Tim is clearly one that would be sent by me as Chair having identified what I think is information that the Board should have. The message contains no opinions, only statements of facts. It does not commit the Council in any direction, does not interfere with the work that the JAS has been tasked with doing, does not defend one position against another.
I would be happy to send such a reworded message, as I honestly believe there considering the way this report is being presented to the Board, it's best to ensure the information the Board has is as complete and unambiguous as possible.
However, I also do realise that this is an important topic for the NCSG. I am elected by all of you and do not wish for my personal actions to be considered by one group to be not taking sufficient account of their worries or issues.
Bill, you said in your last message that the NCSG did not oppose this, but would like to understand the value of doing this. I believe that this has already been answered. But perhaps the rationale I would have in sending the redrafted message Tim suggest as stated in the first part this email helps clarify further.
Please let me know what you, and other NCSG Councillors, think. You make the point that sending this message is useless because Olivier has already indicated in his message that the report hasn't been approved by the GNSO. I would ask you, even if that's the case and people felt confident that this message was stated clearly enough (which doesn't seem to be the case), what would be the harm in re-enphasising the same message? As long as the message itself doesn't change, and I am not saying anything different in my note, what would be the harm?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 11 mai 2011 à 15:15, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
Looks good to me. If there is opposition to sending that message then I suggest a revised message like this:
---------- 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. I understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC.
I wish to highlight the fact that the GNSO Council has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it.
The GNSO is one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG and I am 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 believe 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 this message to the Board.
Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair ---------
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 7:58 am To: "council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
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
-- Ching CHIAO Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD. Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG ===================================== Email: chiao@registry.asia Skype: chiao_rw Mobile: +886-918211372 | +86-13520187032 www.registry.asia | www.apngcamp.asia www.facebook.com/ching.chiao
The lesson for me is that we need to include in the charters of these WGs the requirement that the WG report cannot be sent to the Board or put out for public comment until ALL/BOTH participating SOs and ACs have reviewed and acted on the report. ________________________________ From: ching.chiao@gmail.com [mailto:ching.chiao@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ching Chiao Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 12:04 PM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; Tim Ruiz; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board +1 ..... and we do not need to vote on this (agree on Tim's previous note). On the side note, Stéphane I'd like to reiterate that JIG motion is not a "mistake" but a good lesson learned. In fact as many have gradually learned that two SOs are really on separate track of development and we sort out with great communication between Lesley and you. I owe you / the Council a draft statement and am working on it. Ching On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Rosette, Kristina <krosette@cov.com<mailto:krosette@cov.com>> wrote: I support Tim's redraft (and Stephane's too, for that matter). -----Original Message----- 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 Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 9:50 AM To: Tim Ruiz Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board Thanks Tim and Wolf for your comments. The message as redrafted by Tim is clearly one that would be sent by me as Chair having identified what I think is information that the Board should have. The message contains no opinions, only statements of facts. It does not commit the Council in any direction, does not interfere with the work that the JAS has been tasked with doing, does not defend one position against another. I would be happy to send such a reworded message, as I honestly believe there considering the way this report is being presented to the Board, it's best to ensure the information the Board has is as complete and unambiguous as possible. However, I also do realise that this is an important topic for the NCSG. I am elected by all of you and do not wish for my personal actions to be considered by one group to be not taking sufficient account of their worries or issues. Bill, you said in your last message that the NCSG did not oppose this, but would like to understand the value of doing this. I believe that this has already been answered. But perhaps the rationale I would have in sending the redrafted message Tim suggest as stated in the first part this email helps clarify further. Please let me know what you, and other NCSG Councillors, think. You make the point that sending this message is useless because Olivier has already indicated in his message that the report hasn't been approved by the GNSO. I would ask you, even if that's the case and people felt confident that this message was stated clearly enough (which doesn't seem to be the case), what would be the harm in re-enphasising the same message? As long as the message itself doesn't change, and I am not saying anything different in my note, what would be the harm? Thanks, Stéphane Le 11 mai 2011 à 15:15, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
Looks good to me. If there is opposition to sending that message then I suggest a revised message like this:
---------- 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. I understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC.
I wish to highlight the fact that the GNSO Council has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it.
The GNSO is one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG and I am 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 believe 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 this message to the Board.
Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair ---------
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 7:58 am To: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>
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
-- Ching CHIAO Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD. Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG ===================================== Email: chiao@registry.asia<mailto:chiao@registry.asia> Skype: chiao_rw Mobile: +886-918211372 | +86-13520187032 www.registry.asia<http://www.registry.asia> | www.apngcamp.asia<http://www.apngcamp.asia> www.facebook.com/ching.chiao<http://www.facebook.com/ching.chiao>
Hi - I share others' wishes that it be clear the GNSO Council, on behalf of the GNSO community, has not fully reviewed the JAS report and as such is not yet able to provide any advice or recommendations in that respect. If the note merely said that, I would feel much more comfortable; however, I have two concerns about sending it in its current form: (1) To readers who may not know the scrupulous attention that Rafik and Carlton paid to both the time as well as the proper recipients of the group's report (as summarized by Alan in his last email), it could be interpreted as the Council disapproving of the circumstances of its receipt of the report. (2) More than one Council member has raised questions about either the need or the speed of a Council note/response, and a vote has been requested. Doesn't this mean we need to have a vote (whether or not we may individually feel it is necessary)? I also think the Council should expressly acknowledge that Rafik and Carlton as Co-Chairs definitely kept to the chartered process as to the submission of the report. 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: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To:"Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> CC:"council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/11/2011 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board Thanks Tim and Wolf for your comments. The message as redrafted by Tim is clearly one that would be sent by me as Chair having identified what I think is information that the Board should have. The message contains no opinions, only statements of facts. It does not commit the Council in any direction, does not interfere with the work that the JAS has been tasked with doing, does not defend one position against another. I would be happy to send such a reworded message, as I honestly believe there considering the way this report is being presented to the Board, it's best to ensure the information the Board has is as complete and unambiguous as possible. However, I also do realise that this is an important topic for the NCSG. I am elected by all of you and do not wish for my personal actions to be considered by one group to be not taking sufficient account of their worries or issues. Bill, you said in your last message that the NCSG did not oppose this, but would like to understand the value of doing this. I believe that this has already been answered. But perhaps the rationale I would have in sending the redrafted message Tim suggest as stated in the first part this email helps clarify further. Please let me know what you, and other NCSG Councillors, think. You make the point that sending this message is useless because Olivier has already indicated in his message that the report hasn't been approved by the GNSO. I would ask you, even if that's the case and people felt confident that this message was stated clearly enough (which doesn't seem to be the case), what would be the harm in re-enphasising the same message? As long as the message itself doesn't change, and I am not saying anything different in my note, what would be the harm? Thanks, Stéphane Le 11 mai 2011 à 15:15, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
Looks good to me. If there is opposition to sending that message then I suggest a revised message like this:
---------- 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. I understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC.
I wish to highlight the fact that the GNSO Council has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it.
The GNSO is one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG and I am 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 believe 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 this message to the Board.
Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair ---------
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 7:58 am To: "council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
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 think that sending a message is useless, because it is known the gNSO has not adopted the report yet and questions just started to arise on the list. --andrei -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 5:50 PM To: Tim Ruiz Cc: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board Thanks Tim and Wolf for your comments. The message as redrafted by Tim is clearly one that would be sent by me as Chair having identified what I think is information that the Board should have. The message contains no opinions, only statements of facts. It does not commit the Council in any direction, does not interfere with the work that the JAS has been tasked with doing, does not defend one position against another. I would be happy to send such a reworded message, as I honestly believe there considering the way this report is being presented to the Board, it's best to ensure the information the Board has is as complete and unambiguous as possible. However, I also do realise that this is an important topic for the NCSG. I am elected by all of you and do not wish for my personal actions to be considered by one group to be not taking sufficient account of their worries or issues. Bill, you said in your last message that the NCSG did not oppose this, but would like to understand the value of doing this. I believe that this has already been answered. But perhaps the rationale I would have in sending the redrafted message Tim suggest as stated in the first part this email helps clarify further. Please let me know what you, and other NCSG Councillors, think. You make the point that sending this message is useless because Olivier has already indicated in his message that the report hasn't been approved by the GNSO. I would ask you, even if that's the case and people felt confident that this message was stated clearly enough (which doesn't seem to be the case), what would be the harm in re-enphasising the same message? As long as the message itself doesn't change, and I am not saying anything different in my note, what would be the harm? Thanks, Stéphane Le 11 mai 2011 à 15:15, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
Looks good to me. If there is opposition to sending that message then I suggest a revised message like this:
---------- 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. I understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC.
I wish to highlight the fact that the GNSO Council has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it.
The GNSO is one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG and I am 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 believe 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 this message to the Board.
Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair ---------
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 7:58 am To: "council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
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
Hi On May 11, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Bill, you said in your last message that the NCSG did not oppose this
Slightly different, we have not taken a position yet
, but would like to understand the value of doing this. I believe that this has already been answered.
Sorry, could you remind me where that happened?
But perhaps the rationale I would have in sending the redrafted message Tim suggest as stated in the first part this email helps clarify further.
Please let me know what you, and other NCSG Councillors, think. You make the point that sending this message is useless because Olivier has already indicated in his message that the report hasn't been approved by the GNSO. I would ask you, even if that's the case and people felt confident that this message was stated clearly enough (which doesn't seem to be the case), what would be the harm in re-enphasising the same message? As long as the message itself doesn't change, and I am not saying anything different in my note, what would be the harm?
I think people read things contextually. The recipients would have to be brain dead not to know that the JAS has taken a lot of substantive and procedural criticism in the current Council, so the Council going out of its way to more sharply repeat what ALAC already said about its status in the manner proposed wouldn't read, at least to me, like a positive we are in receipt of the report, thank the group for its hard work, but need time to read and react to it sort of thing. On May 11, 2011, at 5:59 PM, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> wrote:
Hi -
I share others' wishes that it be clear the GNSO Council, on behalf of the GNSO community, has not fully reviewed the JAS report and as such is not yet able to provide any advice or recommendations in that respect. If the note merely said that, I would feel much more comfortable; however, I have two concerns about sending it in its current form:
(1) To readers who may not know the scrupulous attention that Rafik and Carlton paid to both the time as well as the proper recipients of the group's report (as summarized by Alan in his last email), it could be interpreted as the Council disapproving of the circumstances of its receipt of the report.
As I said…tone could be more consistent with the usual
(2) More than one Council member has raised questions about either the need or the speed of a Council note/response, and a vote has been requested. Doesn't this mean we need to have a vote (whether or not we may individually feel it is necessary)?
I wondered about that too, doesn't a call for a vote trigger one?
I also think the Council should expressly acknowledge that Rafik and Carlton as Co-Chairs definitely kept to the chartered process as to the submission of the report.
That'd be a nice gesture. Prior co-chairs also put in an enormous amount of volunteer labor too. Cheers, Bill
Let me get this straight, you're asking for a vote to give me authorization to send the email as drafted by Tim, which would be an email from the Council Chair to the Board? So what you're telling me, as Chair, is that I can't send a factual email without a Council vote? Do you also expect the Council to vote on whether individual groups should be allowed to send a message, as Kristina has suggested the IPC might do? I am happy to have a vote if someone requests one, but I feel this is the process overkill that some have been talking about. Stéphane Le 11 mai 2011 à 18:31, William Drake a écrit :
Hi
On May 11, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Bill, you said in your last message that the NCSG did not oppose this
Slightly different, we have not taken a position yet
, but would like to understand the value of doing this. I believe that this has already been answered.
Sorry, could you remind me where that happened?
But perhaps the rationale I would have in sending the redrafted message Tim suggest as stated in the first part this email helps clarify further.
Please let me know what you, and other NCSG Councillors, think. You make the point that sending this message is useless because Olivier has already indicated in his message that the report hasn't been approved by the GNSO. I would ask you, even if that's the case and people felt confident that this message was stated clearly enough (which doesn't seem to be the case), what would be the harm in re-enphasising the same message? As long as the message itself doesn't change, and I am not saying anything different in my note, what would be the harm?
I think people read things contextually. The recipients would have to be brain dead not to know that the JAS has taken a lot of substantive and procedural criticism in the current Council, so the Council going out of its way to more sharply repeat what ALAC already said about its status in the manner proposed wouldn't read, at least to me, like a positive we are in receipt of the report, thank the group for its hard work, but need time to read and react to it sort of thing.
On May 11, 2011, at 5:59 PM, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> wrote:
Hi -
I share others' wishes that it be clear the GNSO Council, on behalf of the GNSO community, has not fully reviewed the JAS report and as such is not yet able to provide any advice or recommendations in that respect. If the note merely said that, I would feel much more comfortable; however, I have two concerns about sending it in its current form:
(1) To readers who may not know the scrupulous attention that Rafik and Carlton paid to both the time as well as the proper recipients of the group's report (as summarized by Alan in his last email), it could be interpreted as the Council disapproving of the circumstances of its receipt of the report.
As I said…tone could be more consistent with the usual
(2) More than one Council member has raised questions about either the need or the speed of a Council note/response, and a vote has been requested. Doesn't this mean we need to have a vote (whether or not we may individually feel it is necessary)?
I wondered about that too, doesn't a call for a vote trigger one?
I also think the Council should expressly acknowledge that Rafik and Carlton as Co-Chairs definitely kept to the chartered process as to the submission of the report.
That'd be a nice gesture. Prior co-chairs also put in an enormous amount of volunteer labor too.
Cheers,
Bill
Don't be frustrated. Mary asked a procedural point and I just noted it had me wondering too. When a Councilor calls for a vote on sending a message that some of us plainly read differently than others, isn't that the sort of default solution? I don't have the relevant bits of historical practice or the OP ingrained in my head at the moment, actually doing three other things. Personally, my view would be that if we must have a letter saying dear board when ALAC said the GNSO has not reviewed or approved we want you to know that we really have not reviewed or approved, why not soften it a little with the standard tone and acknowledgements and we'll all be happy campers and the vote question would be moot. On May 11, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Let me get this straight, you're asking for a vote to give me authorization to send the email as drafted by Tim, which would be an email from the Council Chair to the Board? So what you're telling me, as Chair, is that I can't send a factual email without a Council vote?
Do you also expect the Council to vote on whether individual groups should be allowed to send a message, as Kristina has suggested the IPC might do?
I am happy to have a vote if someone requests one, but I feel this is the process overkill that some have been talking about.
Stéphane
Le 11 mai 2011 à 18:31, William Drake a écrit :
Hi
On May 11, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Bill, you said in your last message that the NCSG did not oppose this
Slightly different, we have not taken a position yet
, but would like to understand the value of doing this. I believe that this has already been answered.
Sorry, could you remind me where that happened?
But perhaps the rationale I would have in sending the redrafted message Tim suggest as stated in the first part this email helps clarify further.
Please let me know what you, and other NCSG Councillors, think. You make the point that sending this message is useless because Olivier has already indicated in his message that the report hasn't been approved by the GNSO. I would ask you, even if that's the case and people felt confident that this message was stated clearly enough (which doesn't seem to be the case), what would be the harm in re-enphasising the same message? As long as the message itself doesn't change, and I am not saying anything different in my note, what would be the harm?
I think people read things contextually. The recipients would have to be brain dead not to know that the JAS has taken a lot of substantive and procedural criticism in the current Council, so the Council going out of its way to more sharply repeat what ALAC already said about its status in the manner proposed wouldn't read, at least to me, like a positive we are in receipt of the report, thank the group for its hard work, but need time to read and react to it sort of thing.
On May 11, 2011, at 5:59 PM, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> wrote:
Hi -
I share others' wishes that it be clear the GNSO Council, on behalf of the GNSO community, has not fully reviewed the JAS report and as such is not yet able to provide any advice or recommendations in that respect. If the note merely said that, I would feel much more comfortable; however, I have two concerns about sending it in its current form:
(1) To readers who may not know the scrupulous attention that Rafik and Carlton paid to both the time as well as the proper recipients of the group's report (as summarized by Alan in his last email), it could be interpreted as the Council disapproving of the circumstances of its receipt of the report.
As I said…tone could be more consistent with the usual
(2) More than one Council member has raised questions about either the need or the speed of a Council note/response, and a vote has been requested. Doesn't this mean we need to have a vote (whether or not we may individually feel it is necessary)?
I wondered about that too, doesn't a call for a vote trigger one?
I also think the Council should expressly acknowledge that Rafik and Carlton as Co-Chairs definitely kept to the chartered process as to the submission of the report.
That'd be a nice gesture. Prior co-chairs also put in an enormous amount of volunteer labor too.
Cheers,
Bill
Thanks for that positive approach Bill and sorry if I sounded frustrated. It would help me a great deal if the NCSG could propose a draft that you would be comfortable with. Thanks, Stéphane Le 11 mai 2011 à 18:53, William Drake a écrit :
Don't be frustrated. Mary asked a procedural point and I just noted it had me wondering too. When a Councilor calls for a vote on sending a message that some of us plainly read differently than others, isn't that the sort of default solution? I don't have the relevant bits of historical practice or the OP ingrained in my head at the moment, actually doing three other things.
Personally, my view would be that if we must have a letter saying dear board when ALAC said the GNSO has not reviewed or approved we want you to know that we really have not reviewed or approved, why not soften it a little with the standard tone and acknowledgements and we'll all be happy campers and the vote question would be moot.
On May 11, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Let me get this straight, you're asking for a vote to give me authorization to send the email as drafted by Tim, which would be an email from the Council Chair to the Board? So what you're telling me, as Chair, is that I can't send a factual email without a Council vote?
Do you also expect the Council to vote on whether individual groups should be allowed to send a message, as Kristina has suggested the IPC might do?
I am happy to have a vote if someone requests one, but I feel this is the process overkill that some have been talking about.
Stéphane
Le 11 mai 2011 à 18:31, William Drake a écrit :
Hi
On May 11, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Bill, you said in your last message that the NCSG did not oppose this
Slightly different, we have not taken a position yet
, but would like to understand the value of doing this. I believe that this has already been answered.
Sorry, could you remind me where that happened?
But perhaps the rationale I would have in sending the redrafted message Tim suggest as stated in the first part this email helps clarify further.
Please let me know what you, and other NCSG Councillors, think. You make the point that sending this message is useless because Olivier has already indicated in his message that the report hasn't been approved by the GNSO. I would ask you, even if that's the case and people felt confident that this message was stated clearly enough (which doesn't seem to be the case), what would be the harm in re-enphasising the same message? As long as the message itself doesn't change, and I am not saying anything different in my note, what would be the harm?
I think people read things contextually. The recipients would have to be brain dead not to know that the JAS has taken a lot of substantive and procedural criticism in the current Council, so the Council going out of its way to more sharply repeat what ALAC already said about its status in the manner proposed wouldn't read, at least to me, like a positive we are in receipt of the report, thank the group for its hard work, but need time to read and react to it sort of thing.
On May 11, 2011, at 5:59 PM, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> wrote:
Hi -
I share others' wishes that it be clear the GNSO Council, on behalf of the GNSO community, has not fully reviewed the JAS report and as such is not yet able to provide any advice or recommendations in that respect. If the note merely said that, I would feel much more comfortable; however, I have two concerns about sending it in its current form:
(1) To readers who may not know the scrupulous attention that Rafik and Carlton paid to both the time as well as the proper recipients of the group's report (as summarized by Alan in his last email), it could be interpreted as the Council disapproving of the circumstances of its receipt of the report.
As I said…tone could be more consistent with the usual
(2) More than one Council member has raised questions about either the need or the speed of a Council note/response, and a vote has been requested. Doesn't this mean we need to have a vote (whether or not we may individually feel it is necessary)?
I wondered about that too, doesn't a call for a vote trigger one?
I also think the Council should expressly acknowledge that Rafik and Carlton as Co-Chairs definitely kept to the chartered process as to the submission of the report.
That'd be a nice gesture. Prior co-chairs also put in an enormous amount of volunteer labor too.
Cheers,
Bill
participants (7)
-
Andrei Kolesnikov -
Ching Chiao -
Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu -
Rosette, Kristina -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Tim Ruiz -
William Drake