GNSO Email Archives: [council]

ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives
[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>> <<< Thread Index >>>
AW: [council] GNSO Council message of thanks to the JAS WG

To: <krosette@xxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: AW: [council] GNSO Council message of thanks to the JAS WG
From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:47:09 +0200
In-reply-to: <2CFA03BA9889274B88587EE2DF303C820208C0D53F@CBIvEXMB05DC.cov.com>
List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <4DFED0250200005B00072AA4@mail.law.unh.edu> <2CFA03BA9889274B88587EE2DF303C820208C0D53F@CBIvEXMB05DC.cov.com>
Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcwvJnEts0RjP22JQ4ag7sKMt5snVAAxcPFAAADgvbA=
Thread-topic: [council] GNSO Council message of thanks to the JAS WG
+ ISPCP
 

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich 


________________________________

        Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Im Auftrag von Rosette, Kristina
        Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Juni 2011 10:24
        An: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Betreff: RE: [council] GNSO Council message of thanks to the JAS WG
        
        
        IPC supports this statement.


________________________________

                From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
                Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 4:44 AM
                To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council message of thanks to the 
JAS WG
                
                
                It's true that the developments today may have removed some of 
the reasons for sending this (my initial hope had been to have consensus on the 
original statement before today). However, the "optics" issue and the 
perception amongst some Board and community members that the GNSO, and the 
Council in particular, continue NOT to support the work of the JAS WG persist. 
In addition, several Board members today referred to the group and its work (as 
did the resolution itself). 
                 
                In view of the Board's resolutions this morning, I'd remove the 
reference to participating in the first round "without delaying the rollout any 
further"; the statement would therefore read:
                 
                "The GNSO Council unanimously believes that it is important for 
the new gTLD program to be globally inclusive, and to have as part of the 
implementation plan meaningful and workable mechanisms which will assist 
potential needy applicants, inter alia from developing regions of the world, 
participate in the first round of the new gTLD program as fully as possible. We 
thank the members of the JAS WG for all their hard work in preparing the two 
Milestone Reports, and look forward to receiving its Final Report."
                

                 
                 
                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:   "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> 
To:      John Berard <johnberard@xxxxxxx>, "stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx" 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>     
Date:   6/20/2011 3:29 AM       
Subject:        RE: [council] GNSO Council message of thanks to the JAS WG      

And to add to that, given the ICANN Board resolution and the amount of work 
ahead of us to wrap this up, what is the purpose of sending this?

 

More specifically, we need to have the final JAS report with all feedback from 
the community, GNSO approval of the final report, and staff implementation 
details in time to the Board by the ICANN meeting in Dakar.  

 

We should focus on that as opposed to issuing a statement.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
Please note new address:  21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166     

 

________________________________

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

 

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of John Berard
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 3:14 PM
To: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council message of thanks to the JAS WG

 

So, for the sake of clarity, what the heck does the current version look like?

Berard

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sun, Jun 19, 2011 11:59 pm
Subject: [council] GNSO Council message of thanks to the JAS WG

 
FYI, after consulting with my group, I am happy to report that the RrSG would 
support the message as edited by Tim.
 
Thanks,
 
Stéphane
 
 
 
Le 19 juin 2011 à 13:36, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :
 
> I would agree with Tim on this as being a compromise that we can possibly all 
get behind, but we are not there yet. We haven't had time to consult with the 
registrars and we have yet to hear from all the GNSO groups.
> 
> However, if that can happen soon, I would certainly be very happy to be able 
to distribute a statement thanking the JAS WG and highlighting the importance 
the GNSO places on the fact that the new gTLD program be globally inclusive, as 
your Chair.
> 
> If we can get agreement on this soon, I would suggest this be posted on the 
Council's website and also sent by me to the Chairs of the Board, the GAC, the 
ccNSO and ALAC.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> Le 19 juin 2011 à 08:39, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx a écrit :
> 
>> 
>> We're looking for something we can all agree on, right? It's a concern that 
>> I 
think the RrSG will have. So my question is does removing make it that much 
difference?
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:33:36 
>> To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: AW: AW: [council] Adrian's gameplan
>> 
>> Tim, I don't understand the 1st sentence - "The GNSO Council wishes to 
reiterate its support for the work of the
>> Joint Applicant Support Working Group" - as support of all of the JAS-WG 
results (which could be seen as pre-endorsement) rather than as an ecouragement 
to continue in finding acceptable solutions for a given task.
>> 
>> 
>> Kind regards
>> Wolf-Ulrich 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx?> ] 
>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011 01:09
>> An: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Knoben, 
Wolf-Ulrich; Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Betreff: RE: AW: [council] Adrian's gameplan
>> 
>> Sorry Mary, I didn't get to the end of the thread before replying. If
>> you drop the first sentence, and add the without further delay as in my
>> first suggestion, I think the RrSG would be more likely to approve. So
>> it would be:
>> 
>> "The GNSO Council unanimously believes that it is important for the new
>> gTLD program to be globally inclusive, and to have as part of the
>> implementation plan meaningful and workable mechanisms which will assist
>> potential needy applicants, inter alia from developing regions of the
>> world, participate in the first round of the new gTLD program as fully
>> as possible without delaying the program rollout any further. We
>> reiterate also our thanks to the members of the JAS WG for all their
>> hard work in preparing the two Milestone Reports, and look forward to
>> receiving its Final Report."
>> 
>> Tim  
>> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: RE: AW: [council] Adrian's gameplan
>> From: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Sat, June 18, 2011 4:35 am
>> To: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>> KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
>> 
>> I am good with this.
>> 
>> 
>> Berard
>> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: AW: [council] Adrian's gameplan
>> From: <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Sat, June 18, 2011 2:25 am
>> To: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> I don't have a problem with that, Wolf-Ulrich i.e. your insertion and
>> deleting the reference to "on behalf of our Cs and SGs". 
>> 
>> If I may, we can also consider deleting the last part of my draft, which
>> means the statement will now read (with Wolf-Ulrich's suggested changes
>> included):
>> 
>> "The GNSO Council wishes to reiterate its support for the work of the
>> Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG). We unanimously believe
>> that it is important for the new gTLD program to be globally inclusive,
>> and to have as part of the implementation plan meaningful and workable
>> mechanisms which will assist potential needy applicants, inter alia from
>> developing regions of the world, participate in the first round of the
>> new gTLD program as fully as possible. We reiterate also our thanks to
>> the members of the JAS WG for all their hard work in preparing the two
>> Milestone Reports, and look forward to receiving its Final Report."
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Mary W S Wong
>> Professor of Law
>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
>> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
>> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
>> 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
>> http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
>> the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
>> http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 
>> From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>To:<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>CC:<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Date: 6/18/2011
>> 5:20 AMSubject: AW: [council] Adrian's gameplan
>> 1. See my insertion. I think "needy applicants" is to be seen in a wider
>> range - as referenced in the JAS report, too.
>> 
>> 2. The term "and on behalf of all our Constituencies and Stakeholder
>> Groups" means (time-eating) co-ordination
>> 
>> Kind regards
>> Wolf-Ulrich 
>> 
>> 
>> Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>> <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx?> ]
>> Im Auftrag von Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Juni 2011 10:58
>> An: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: 'GNSO Council List'
>> Betreff: RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> How about -
>> 
>> "The GNSO Council wishes to reiterate its support for the work of the
>> Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG). We unanimously, and on
>> behalf of all our Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups, believe that it
>> is important for the new gTLD program to be globally inclusive, and to
>> have as part of the implementation plan meaningful and workable
>> mechanisms which will assist potential needy applicants [WUK: ]  - inter
>> alia from developing regions of the world[WUK: ]  -  participate in the
>> first round of the new gTLD program as fully as possible. We reiterate
>> also our thanks to the members of the JAS WG for all their hard work in
>> preparing the two Milestone Reports, and look forward to receiving its
>> Final Report so that recommendations for ensuring equal access to the
>> new gTLD program can be discussed and implemented."  
>> 
>> I would suggest that, if we can, a statement such as this (tweaked as
>> necessary) be issued to the community (including the Board and the GAC)
>> as soon as possible :)
>> 
>> 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 LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
>> 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
>> http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
>> the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
>> http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 
>> From: Rosemary Sinclair <"
>> target=_blank>rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx>;To:Adrian Kinderis
>> <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "tim@xxxxxxxxxxx" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Stéphane Van Gelder<" target=_blank>stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>;,
>> "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> "Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>CC:"'GNSO Council List'"
>> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Date: 6/18/2011 4:48 AMSubject: RE: [council]
>> Adrian's gameplan
>> 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 
>> <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 <"
>> target=_blank>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:>" <mailto:%3E%22?> 
>> target=_blank>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:"; <mailto:%22?> 
>> target=_blank>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:>" <mailto:%3E%22?> 
>> target=_blank>andrei@xxxxxxxx>>;
>> 
>> To:
>> 
>> "'Adrian Kinderis'" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:>" <mailto:%3E%22?> 
>> target=_blank>adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>;, "'GNSO Council List'"
>> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:>" <mailto:%3E%22?> 
>> target=_blank>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:"; <mailto:%22?> 
>> target=_blank>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
>> 
>> 
>
Follow-Ups:
- Re: AW: [council] GNSO Council message of thanks to the JAS WG
  - From: William Drake
References:
- RE: [council] GNSO Council message of thanks to the JAS WG
  - From: Mary.Wong
- RE: [council] GNSO Council message of thanks to the JAS WG
  - From: Rosette, Kristina
<<< Chronological Index >>> <<< Thread Index >>>