ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

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


Tim. it is ok,  As You Know  the personal opinion in blogs, not necessarily are 
make as members of any organizacion or constituency. This was what I wanted to 
clarify, because it seems to me was needed. and not every NCSG members are 
involved in those comments. thanks 

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
NCA GNSO Council - ICANN
former ALAC member by LACRALO
Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
http://ar.ageiadensi.org 




Subject: Re: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
To: carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx; hughesdeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; knobenw@xxxxxxxxxx; william.drake@xxxxxx
CC: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:17:56 +0000







Carlos,

Was referring to Avri's posts. Assumed those were general views of NCSG. 
Apologize if not. But my point about what the Council is supposed to be doing 
remains.

TimFrom:  carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:05:32 +0000To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 
<hughesdeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
<mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; <knobenw@xxxxxxxxxx>; 
william Drake<william.drake@xxxxxx>Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Subject: RE: : 
[council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report

Tim: I would like if you could clarify the sentence  "We could likely argue for 
weeks about the inaccuracy of some of the NCSG comments in blogs, etc. about 
contracted parties" . I consider necessary determinate in a clear way the names 
of NCSG`s, and facts wich you mention, because you can not involve every NCSG 
members on this. And when you say "some" unfortunatelly  you are mentioning to 
all. thanks


Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
NCA GNSO Council - ICANN
former ALAC member by LACRALO
Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
http://ar.ageiadensi.org 




Subject: Re: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
To: HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx; stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; 
william.drake@xxxxxx
CC: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:29:28 +0000
















If that is our duty we will have little time for anything else. We could likely 
argue for weeks about the inaccuracy of some of the NCSG comments in blogs, 
etc. about contracted parties. Fortunately, our charge is fairly simple, manage 
the policy process. Let's just stick to that,  please.

Tim
From:  <HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender:  owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 10:17:33 -0400To: <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>; <william.drake@xxxxxx>Cc: 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Subject: RE: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second 
JAS WG report




Mary,

I agree and support your sentiments.

Debbie



Debra Y. Hughes l Senior
Counsel 

American Red Cross 


Office of the General Counsel  

2025 E Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

Phone: (202) 303-5356 

Fax: (202) 303-0143 

HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





 









From:
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:04
AM

To: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx;
KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; william.drake@xxxxxx

Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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



 



As I'd
indicated on the Council call, I believe it's our duty to correct factual
misrepresentations that we know have taken place by/within the GNSO community.
As such, I support sending the letter as Stephane now has it (i.e. including
Bill's language).





 





I note
also that neither this version nor my earlier attempts to achieve a similar
result are "NCSG positions" as such, although I believe a number of
other NCSG Councilors share my view.





 





As Jeff
points out, we are not in a position to alter what ALAC/At Large did as part of
their process. We are, however, obliged not to permit continued misperceptions
about what happened to circulate amongst our community.





 





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:
    
    
    
    <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
    
   
   
    
    To:
    
    
    <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>,
    <william.drake@xxxxxx>
    
   
   
    
    CC:
    
    
    <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    
   
   
    
    Date:
    
    
    
    5/23/2011
    9:10 AM
    
   
   
    
    Subject:
    
    
    
    AW:
    AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
    
   
  
  Thanks both, Bill and Stéphane. I think this is acceptable.
  
   
  
  Kind
  regards

  Wolf-Ulrich 
  
   
  
  
  
  Von:
  Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 

  Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011
  14:27

  An: William Drake

  Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich;
  council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

  Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Fwd:
  Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
  In the interest of
  clarity, I believe this is the excerpt from the blog post that Bill is
  referring to: 
  
   
  
  
  Support for Needy Applicants 
  
   ICANN is
       awaiting guidance from the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group
       who submitted their report directly to
       the Board over this past weekend. It's not clear why the GNSO was
       circumvented from the process, or how that will be addressed by the
       Board. While the ICANN Community all seem to agree there needs to be a
       mechanism for providing support to needy applicants, a workable solution
       needs to be found. I've not read the full report yet, but am hopeful.
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
  And in the interest of
  consensus and moving ahead with this, Jeff or anyone else, is it really such
  a big problem to add Bill's sentence and send the message as suggested in my
  latest draft?
  
  
   
  
  
  If we are worried about
  the fact that the Board could get the wrong idea about the report and not
  understand that it hasn't been approved yet, which is the rationale behind us
  working on this message in the first place, then it does not seem totally out
  of place to also address another misunderstanding that some worry might
  exist, does it?
  
  
   
  
  
  Even if we don't all
  think the misunderstanding exists. Let's not forget that some of us didn't
  think that the first misunderstanding (about the Board not getting the fact
  that the report hasn't been approved) existed and yet, they still agreed to
  send the message.
  
  
   
  
  
  So my suggestion is
  that the message as it currently stands incorporates all these varied POVs
  and allows us to move forwards.
  
  
   
  
  
  Thanks,
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  Stéphane
  
  
   
  
   
  
   
  
  
  Le 23 mai 2011 à 14:17,
  William Drake a écrit :
  
  

  

  
  
  Hi Wolf-Ulrich
   
  
  
  On May 23, 2011, at
  2:03 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
  <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  
  

  

  
  
  could you please provide me with the "false information
  circulated"? Sorry, I forget too many things.
  
   
  
  
  I believe we discussed
  previously the fact that there were people running around saying that JAS had
  directly submitted its report to the Board in some sort of dastardly plot to
  circumvent the GNSO Council.  These rumblings were then put into words
  on a widely read blog 
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110512_icann_tiptoes_through_political_minefield_new_tlds/
 which
  prompted Alan and other JAS members to issue corrections.  I don't know
  whether those corrections have been widely read and internalized or if there
  are still people out there laboring under misunderstandings.  But I
  would think the Council would have a self-interest in stating for the record
  that the process was followed and it was not dissed.
  
  
   
  
  
  Best,
  
  
   
  
  
  Bill
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
 


 

                                          


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