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

[<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am good with this.

Berard

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant
> Support Second Milestone Report
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, May 20, 2011 8:36 am
> To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> All,
> 
> I have now had time to listen to most of the Council call. I would like to 
> congratulate Jeff on doing such a good job of chairing the meeting in my 
> stead, not that I had any doubt ;) My thanks Jeff for stepping in like that.
> 
> I have listened to the Council discussions on the JAS. Let me add just a few 
> words to your discussions. It is very clear to me that the Council chair may 
> send an information message to the Board if he or she feels it is required. 
> The onus here is on the word "information". The message should be factual 
> only and contain nothing which could be construed as opinion. I was very 
> comfortable with sending such a message to the Board in this case. However, 
> once we started discussing, it became clear that some thought the proposed 
> message not to be only informational. Also, one Councillor called for a vote. 
> That being the case, I did not feel I could just brush these concerns aside 
> and instead I proposed a vote on the list.
> 
> The results of that vote are as follows: 6 in favor of message version A, 7 
> in favor of message version B and 1 in favor of "none of the above". To that 
> tally we should add my vote, which would be for version B.
> 
> So where does this leave us. Well, from both your discussions during the 
> Council meeting and the vote and the discussion on the list, it is clear that 
> there is an overwhelming majority for at least one thing: sending a message 
> (Andrei's vote is really the only one that goes against this). In that 
> regard, I concur with Jonathan who said on the call that we've probably done 
> too much work on this already to just not do anything now.
> 
> As for what message to send, that is not quite so easy. The Council is split, 
> with a small majority leaning towards version B. On the call you all 
> discussed adding the fact that the GNSO Council will vote on the JAS report 
> at its next meeting, on June 9. I think this is once again purely factual so 
> I would suggest we add this to the message. In fact, it seems to me that this 
> new bit of information actually helps make the message more factual and less 
> controversial. It helps do away, for example, with considerations of who 
> chartered what and just keeps the message grounded in facts.
> 
> So I would like to propose this draft, where we just tell the Board where 
> we're at now and when they can expect something from us.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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. A motion to do this was proposed at our May 
> 19 teleconference and tabled until our next meeting, on June 9.
> 
> 
> I will therefore look to get back to you after this meeting to provide you 
> with an update on the GNSO Council's decision re the JAS report.
>  
> I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the 
> Board.
> 
> 
>  
> Best regards,
> Stephane van Gelder
> GNSO Council Chair
> 
> 
>