ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report

  • To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
  • From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 13:16:36 +0200
  • Cc: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <D03D32A5-AADC-4F3D-98D4-FE3957618985@indom.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <BANLkTinRLnWbWFKUorzK0JCQwKjjT0LhRQ@mail.gmail.com> <D03D32A5-AADC-4F3D-98D4-FE3957618985@indom.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Stéphane

On May 23, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> Discussions by them of a "way forward" on a report that hasn't yet been 
> approved by us may just be thinking ahead, or it may be that they have not 
> cottoned on to the fact that the report hasn't yet been approved…

I suspect they do understand what is plainly obvious but believe consideration 
of a "way forward" is necessary nonetheless.  Which would be a sound 
conclusion, given the serious need to broaden both international participation 
in gTLDs and political support for ICANN.  

With regard to your letter, may I suggest a small and incontrovertibly factual 
amendment that would be entirely in keeping with your purely informational 
objective here?  How's about adding the following:  "In light of false 
information that has been circulated on the matter, the GNSO Council would also 
like to confirm that the JAS WG simultaneously submitted its Report to ALAC and 
the GNSO for review."  This is should eliminate the NC opposition to a letter 
(haven't asked, but believe so).

Bill
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>