Re: [council] Draft message to the Board

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

you mean the message from ALAC?

Rafik Dammak
Twitter: @rafik
Linkedin: http://tn.linkedin.com/in/rafikdammak



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

> How did the Board get the report?
>
>
>
> Also,
>
>
>
> *SUMMARY *
>
> This report is submitted to the Board and is currently undergoing ALAC
> ratification.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Adrian Kinderis*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:38 PM
> *To:* Adrian Kinderis
> *Cc:* Olga Cavalli; Stéphane Van Gelder; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
>
> *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft message to the Board
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>