RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan

[Rosemary Sinclair <rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Or that using a CWG when we do not have clear, agreed processes made progress 
on an issue where there was common commitment to doing "something" much more 
difficult for the WG members and the Council

Given that we now have a unanimous position supporting the group's work I think 
Mary's original proposal was very useful as it took the content out of play and 
left our ongoing discussion to focus on process management issues....in this 
case implementation proposals rather than policy proposals....

I'd support Mary's original version

Cheers

Rosemary
________________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Adrian Kinderis [adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 5:48 PM
To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan

+1

Adrian Kinderis


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, 18 June 2011 3:48 PM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: Re: [council] Adrian's gameplan

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

Tim
________________________________
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:09:47 +0200
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:andrei@xxxxxxxx>>

To:

"'Adrian Kinderis'" 
<adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, "'GNSO Council 
List'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
[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