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

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Stephane,

recalling the last gnso council call, I don't think that there was consensus
about approving sending the letter.

Best,

Rafik



2011/5/21 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>

>
> Thanks to all those who have responded. So far, everyone is OK with the
> proposed message. Can I ask that if there is any opposition to me sending
> this message, this be voiced by COB Monday May 23?
>
> Absent strong opposition, I will look to sending the message to PDT on
> Tuesday.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stéphane
>
>
>
> Le 21 mai 2011 à 05:30, Ching Chiao a écrit :
>
> >
> > OK too.
> >
> > On Saturday, May 21, 2011, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ]
> >> On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 11:36 AM
> >> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
> >> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant
> >> Support Second Milestone Report
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Ching CHIAO
> > Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD.
> > Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group
> > Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG
> > =====================================
> > Email: chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx     Skype: chiao_rw
> > Mobile: +886-918211372  |  +86-13520187032
> > www.registry.asia | www.apngcamp.asia
> > www.facebook.com/ching.chiao
> >
>
>
>