Re: [council] Draft message to the Board

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

@Adrian I puzzled with you claiming that " report was sent directly to the
board from the WG", that is false claim and fact, the WG only sent the
report to (in 8th and not 9th as it is written in the draft letter) its
chartering organizations and explained that clearly in my message to
Stephane, so there is no need to rush if you assumed the former.
I am also going to submit a motion soon for GNSO council consideration.

I agree with Olga that there is no unanimous support and we need to vote on
that.

Regards

Rafik


2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having
> been sent it directly from the WG.
>
>
>
> It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not
> approved by the Council.
>
>
>
> These are facts. Why can’t they be stated?
>
>
>
> *Adrian Kinderis*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:23 PM
> *To:* Adrian Kinderis
> *Cc:* Stéphane Van Gelder; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
>
> *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
>
>
>
> Hi,
> Should we have a vote on this?
> I do not understand why we have to rush, could some one clarify this to me?
> Best
> Olga
>
> 2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Olga,
>
>
>
> Maybe I can help, I believe SVG means that, of all the responses to the
> list so far, all have agreed with my statement and request to send a letter
> to the Board.
>
>
>
> *Adrian Kinderis*
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *On Behalf Of *Olga Cavalli
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:09 PM
> *To:* Stéphane Van Gelder
>
>
> *Cc:* council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
>
> *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
>
>
>
> Hi Stéphane,
> my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling.
> Could you please clarify "unanimous support"?
> Many thanks and regards
> Olga
>
> 2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Councillors,
>
>
>
> In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous
> support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have
> your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council
> liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any
> message to the Board.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Stéphane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Peter,
>
>
>
> On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support
> Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand
> that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC.
>
>
>
> The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this
> report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The
> report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9,
> 2011.
>
>
>
> As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen
> to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has
> been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it.
>
>
>
> I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's
> message to the Board.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Stéphane Van Gelder
>
> GNSO Council Chair
>
>
>
>
>