Re: [council] JAS

["Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I support Option 1, and add for good measure that I agree with Bill and
Alan.
 
Bearing in mind that the JAS WG is a cross-community working group
consisting of volunteers from within and outside the GNSO, I believe we
can trust the WG to highlight the points of distinction as to where its
recommendations are within or outside the GNSO charter. As such, I don't
think the Council will have to do too much in terms of separating out
the various parts; perhaps we can follow up with a note to the WG to
request such delineation in their report.
 
Cheers
Mary

 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
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: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
To:Drake William <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC:GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bruce Tonkin
<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 1/21/2011 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: [council] JAS

Bill,

You are right to note the diversity of votes, but then end result is
the motion the Council ended up passing. That is what we have to work
with, not the previous motion.

So if I summarize the current proposals, we can either ask the JAS WG
to work with both charters and highlight which charter it is responding
to, where, when it comes to draft its report. Or we can ask the WG to
work on the base charter, and "add" the parts that ALAC agreed to.

There are major differences in both approaches. Option 2 means the WG
produces a report that the GNSO Council can endorse as-is. Option 1 may
mean that the Council has to "pick and choose" which bits of the report
it wants to endorse, and which it doesn't.

Stéphane

Le 21 janv. 2011 à 16:30, Drake William a écrit :

> 
> Hi
> 
> On Jan 21, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Councillors,
>> 
>> Bruce and I have been discussing the JAS situation off list and he
has a suggestion on another possible way forward we might consider. I
would like to make it clear this is being presented in both Bruce and
myself's personal capacity. This is just us brainstorming the issue, not
suggesting ways forward as Board member and GNSO Chair.
>> 
>> One thing the GNSO could look at is asking the JAS WG to work on
topics of mutual interest or common ground as defined in the GNSO
motion. ALAC could take items that are in addition back for their own
internal discussion. They could then look at providing advice to the
Board directly.
> 
> Alternatively, as Alan suggested, JAS could work on both and produce
a report in which the two sets of issues and recs are clearly delineated
and the Council considers adopting those under its charter.  
> 
>> 
>> As far as we are concerned, even though this is a CWG, it is still
up to us as the GNSO to endorse those items we agree with and formally
provide our recommendation to the Board.
> 
> Right, but does endorsing only those we agree with necessarily
require that we try to go out and block colleagues in a CWG from working
on those we don't?
> 
> Also, as we go forward, can we please bear in mind that 12 Councilors
voted against the JAS' version and 8 voted for it?  And that the
previous Council endorsed the JAS launch the board asked for, and that
anyone who had issues with the direction of its work could have joined
it to 'right' the course, etc?  There are a diversity of views here,
even if not everyone has the stomach to jump in and react to every ripe
statement about JAS and the concerns it's trying to address.
>> 
>> Also, to avoid confusion between use of the term working group
within the GNSO procedures, maybe the joint SO/AC groups could be called
"discussion forums".
> 
> How about Council Uber Alles Forums?  Not a great acronym but it'd
capture the spirit of the thing.
> 
> Bill
> 
> 





As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with
the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of
New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have
changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx.
For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law,
please visit law.unh.edu