Mary, it sounds like a pre-endorsement of the JAS WG final report. That's not what I understood this was about. I certainly do believe it is an important issue, but I question whether a CWG/JWG was the right mechanism to resolve the issue. In fact, I am convinced it was not. I do appreciate and thank the JAS members for their hard work, they have been diligent about trying to address the issue, but I am not confident, based on what I have seen so far that, that the RrSG will endorse he recommendations. I would like to suggest something more like the following: "We unanimously, and on behalf of all our Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups, believe that it is important for the new gTLD program to be globally inclusive, and to have as part of the implementation plan meaningful and workable mechanisms which will assist potential needy applicants from developing regions of the world participate in the first round of the new gTLD program as fully as possible without delaying rollout of the program any further. We reiterate also our thanks to the members of the JAS WG for all their hard work in preparing the two Milestone Reports, and look forward to receiving its Final Report so that recommendations for ensuring equal access to the new gTLD program can be discussed." Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan From: <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Date: Sat, June 18, 2011 3:58 am To: "owner-council@gnso.icann.org" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: "'GNSO Council List'" <council@gnso.icann.org> How about - "The GNSO Council wishes to reiterate its support for the work of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG). We unanimously, and on behalf of all our Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups, believe that it is important for the new gTLD program to be globally inclusive, and to have as part of the implementation plan meaningful and workable mechanisms which will assist potential needy applicants from developing regions of the world participate in the first round of the new gTLD program as fully as possible. We reiterate also our thanks to the members of the JAS WG for all their hard work in preparing the two Milestone Reports, and look forward to receiving its Final Report so that recommendations for ensuring equal access to the new gTLD program can be discussed and implemented." I would suggest that, if we can, a statement such as this (tweaked as necessary) be issued to the community (including the Board and the GAC) as soon as possible :) 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: Rosemary Sinclair <rosemary.sinclair@unsw.edu.au>To:Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>, "tim@godaddy.com" <tim@godaddy.com>, Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>, "Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu" <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>CC:"'GNSO Council List'" <council@gnso.icann.org>Date: 6/18/2011 4:48 AMSubject: RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan Or that using a CWG when we do not have clear, agreed processes made progress on an issue where there was common commitment to doing "something" much more difficult for the WG members and the Council Given that we now have a unanimous position supporting the group's work I think Mary's original proposal was very useful as it took the content out of play and left our ongoing discussion to focus on process management issues....in this case implementation proposals rather than policy proposals.... I'd support Mary's original version Cheers Rosemary ________________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis [adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 5:48 PM To: tim@godaddy.com; Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan +1 Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of tim@godaddy.com Sent: Saturday, 18 June 2011 3:48 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] Adrian's gameplan And that a cwg or jwg may not have been the appropriate mechanism for the issue. Tim ________________________________ From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:09:47 +0200 To: <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Cc: 'GNSO Council List'<council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Adrian's gameplan Thanks Mary, Would you be up for drafting a proposed statement, for the Council's consideration? Stéphane Le 18 juin 2011 à 09:01, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>> a écrit : In partial follow-up to Adrian's point about possible deliverables and courses of action, I'd offer the suggestion I made during today's discussion, viz., that the GNSO Council consider circulating a brief statement to the ICANN community, stating its support for the work being done by the JAS WG and reiterating the importance of the issues they are considering. Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.edu> Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

...

...

From:

"Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei@cctld.ru<mailto:andrei@cctld.ru>> To: "'Adrian Kinderis'" <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>>, "'GNSO Council List'" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Date: 6/18/2011 1:13 AM Subject: RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan I think adding "set and bind to the timelines" would be beneficial. Or there will be always a workaround for "endless discussion". --andrei From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 12:56 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Adrian's gameplan As I discussed in the Working Session today. The four issues based on this discussion (as I see them); - Stephane speaking directly to the Board - Katim’s email and the issues of the JAS WG o Processes within the Council - The future of Cross Community Working Groups o Publishing of reports etc - The optics of the GNSO Council and the promotion of its internal processes and representation o Multi stakeholder make up o Differing views/ differing It would be best, I think, to try and get some deliverables and courses of action in order to promote resolution. Adrian Kinderis