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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks John.

Stéphane



Le 20 mai 2011 à 18:08, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a 
écrit :

> 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
> > Date: Fri, May 20, 2011 8:36 am
> > To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" 
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
>