Re: [council] Adrian's gameplan

[tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]

And that a cwg or jwg may not have been the appropriate mechanism for the 
issue. 

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:09:47 
To: <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'GNSO Council List'<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Adrian's gameplan

Thanks Mary,

Would you be up for drafting a proposed statement, for the Council's 
consideration?

Stéphane



Le 18 juin 2011 à 09:01, <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> In partial follow-up to Adrian's point about possible deliverables and 
> courses of action, I'd offer the suggestion I made during today's discussion, 
> viz., that the GNSO Council consider circulating a brief statement to the 
> ICANN community, stating its support for the work being done by the JAS WG 
> and reiterating the importance of the issues they are considering.
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 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: "Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei@xxxxxxxx>
> To:   "'Adrian Kinderis'" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'GNSO Council List'" 
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 6/18/2011 1:13 AM
> Subject:      RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan
> I think adding "set and bind to the timelines" would be beneficial.  Or there 
> will be always a workaround for "endless discussion".  
>  
> --andrei
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 12:56 PM
> To: GNSO Council List
> Subject: [council] Adrian's gameplan
>  
> As I discussed in the Working Session today.
>  
> The four issues based on this discussion (as I see them);
>  
> -          Stephane speaking directly to the Board
> -          Katim’s email and the issues of the JAS WG
> o   Processes within the Council
> -          The future of Cross Community Working Groups
> o   Publishing of reports etc
> -          The optics of the GNSO Council and the promotion of its internal 
> processes and representation
> o   Multi stakeholder make up
> o   Differing views/ differing
>  
> It would be best, I think, to try and get some deliverables and courses of 
> action in order to promote resolution.
>  
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
>