Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx>]

And here's one for A

Bill

On May 19, 2011, at 5:16 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

> and another one. 
>  
> K
> 
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:22 PM
> To: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant 
> Support Second Milestone Report
> 
> One more vote for B
> 
> Berard
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant
> > Support Second Milestone Report
> > From: Stéphane Van Gelder
> > Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 9:23 am
> > To: "Neuman, Jeff" 
> > Cc: "'tim@xxxxxxxxxxx'" , 
> > "'owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" , 
> > "'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" 
> > 
> > So that's one vote for version B, right?
> > 
> > Stéphane
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Le 17 mai 2011 à 17:54, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
> > 
> > Unfortunately, I cannot commit on behalf of the rysg to that last sentence 
> > on "observance" and would prefer its deletion since on our last rysg call 
> > questions were raised and I am not sure it adds to the substance of the 
> > note.
> > 
> > Thanks. 
> > 
> > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> > 
> > Vice President, Law & Policy
> > 
> > NeuStar, Inc.
> > 
> > Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
> > 
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:43 AM
> > To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> > 
> > Cc: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Council GNSO 
> > 
> > Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant 
> > Support Second Milestone Report
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Thanks Tim, Jeff, Mary and Alan,
> > 
> > This would be the proposed message then. Either (I call this version A):
> > 
> > Dear Peter,
> > 
> >  
> > We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD 
> > Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the 
> > other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it 
> > has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move 
> > forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and 
> > hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as 
> > possible. 
> > 
> > The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates 
> > the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the GNSO-chartering process, in 
> > submitting its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review.
> >  
> > I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the 
> > Board.
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > Best regards,
> > Stephane van Gelder
> > GNSO Council Chair
> > 
> > 
> > Or (this my version B):
> > 
> > 
> > Dear Peter,
> > 
> >  
> > We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD 
> > Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the 
> > other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it 
> > has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move 
> > forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and 
> > hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as 
> > possible. 
> > 
> >  
> > I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the 
> > Board.
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > Best regards,
> > Stephane van Gelder
> > GNSO Council Chair
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > As Olga had requested a vote, I would like to suggest that we give 
> > ourselves until Thursday's meeting to vote by return email to the list on 
> > either version A or B, and whichever has the most votes is the one I send.
> > 
> > 
> > Is that acceptable to everyone?
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > 
> > Stéphane
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Le 17 mai 2011 à 14:12, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx a écrit :
> > No objection if you remove the last sentence. There is no chartering 
> > process for CWGs. The ALAC and GNSO could not even agree on what the 
> > charter should be. And at least a few of us have concerns about how and why 
> > CWGs are being formed.
> > 
> > 
> > Tim
> > From: Stéphane Van Gelder 
> > 
> > Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 
> > Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:45:21 +0200
> > To: Council GNSO
> > Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant 
> > Support Second Milestone Report
> > 
> > Councillors,
> > 
> > Please find below the NCSG's suggestion on a message which I could send to 
> > the Chairman of the Board in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO.
> > 
> > Thanks Mary for providing this draft.
> > 
> > Please let me have your comments.
> > 
> > Stéphane
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Le 14 mai 2011 à 16:31, a écrit :
> > 
> > Hi - sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the Council letter; 
> > there has been some lively discussion among some NCSG folks about it.
> >  
> > We suggest the following draft:
> >  
> > Dear Peter,
> > 
> >  
> > We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD 
> > Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the 
> > other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it 
> > has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move 
> > forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and 
> > hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as 
> > possible. 
> > 
> > The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates 
> > the JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the chartering process, in submitting 
> > its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review. 
> >  
> > I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the 
> > Board.
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > Best regards,
> > Stephane van Gelder
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Mary
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Mary W S Wong
> > Professor of Law
> > Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
> > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
> > Two White Street
> > Concord, NH 03301
> > USA
> > Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) 
> > at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: 
> > Stéphane Van Gelder
> > 
> > To:
> > Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond , Council GNSO 
> > 
> > Date: 
> > 5/14/2011 5:18 AM
> > 
> > Subject: 
> > [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second 
> > Milestone ReportThanks Olivier.
> > 
> > 
> > GNSO Council, FYI.
> > 
> > 
> > A good weekend to all.
> > 
> > 
> > Stéphane
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Le 14 mai 2011 à 11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit :
> > 
> > 
> > Dear Stéphane,
> > 
> > please find enclosed, a copy of our follow-up message to the Board 
> > including ALAC comments.
> > Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any query about its 
> > contents.
> > Have a good week-end!
> > Kind regards,
> > 
> > Olivier
> > 
> > -------- Message original --------
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Sujet:
> > Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
> > 
> > Date :
> > Fri, 13 May 2011 20:26:34 -0700
> > 
> > De :
> > ICANN At-Large Staff 
> > 
> > Pour :
> > Secretary 
> > 
> > Copie à :
> > ocl@xxxxxxx , carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx , rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx , ICANN 
> > At-Large Staff
> > 
> > Dear all,  
> > 
> > 
> > The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the 
> > At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC):
> > 
> > The Second Milestone Report of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support 
> > Working Group ( JAS WG), with a revised ALAC introduction (entitled �Status 
> > of this Document�); and
> > The Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone 
> > Report.  
> > 
> > We request that these documents (attached here) be forwarded to the members 
> > of the ICANN Board.   
> > 
> > The Second Milestone Report was received by the ALAC and the Generic Names 
> > Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 7 May 2011.  Then, the At-Large staff, on 
> > behalf of the ALAC, initially forwarded this Report to the Board on 9 May 
> > 2011.  Please note that the Report itself has not been substantively 
> > changed since the Board initially received it on 9 May.
> > 
> > During the period 7�13 May, comments on the Report were collected from the 
> > At-Large Community.  These comments are the basis for the Statement of the 
> > ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report attached here.
> > 
> > The ALAC ratification process for the Second Milestone Report and the ALAC 
> > Statement will begin on 14 May, and the results will be forwarded to the 
> > Board.
> >            
> > Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted 
> > independently and has not reached the approval stage. 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and 
> > Marilyn Vernon
> > ICANN At-Large Staff
> > 
> > email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org
> > website: www.atlarge.icann.org
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>