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

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

hard choice but definitely vote for A ;)

Regards

Rafik


2011/5/19 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>