RE: [council] Draft message to the Board

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1

Adrian Kinderis
Chief Executive Officer
AusRegistry International Pty Ltd
Level 8, 10 Queens Road
Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
Email: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web: www.ausregistry.com<http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/>

- Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter: 
www.twitter.com/ausregistryint<http://www.twitter.com/ausregistryint>

The information contained in this communication is intended for the named 
recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged 
and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must 
not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have 
received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system 
and notify us immediately.


From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:56 PM
To: 'rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx'; Adrian Kinderis
Cc: 'olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx'; 'stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx'; 
'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board

Just as the ccNSO objected to us sending the JIG report to the Board without 
their approval, I object to the ALAC's sending of the report to the Board 
without our review and approval.

Again, we have to get the rules straight on how Cross-Working Groups operate. 
We have lost complete control and until such time as we figure out the rules, I 
cannot be in favor of the creation of any future cross working groups no matter 
how well intentioned they are meant to be.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 06:50 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>; Stéphane Van Gelder 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board

you mean the message from ALAC?

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


2011/5/11 Adrian Kinderis 
<adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:38 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis
Cc: Olga Cavalli; Stéphane Van Gelder; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:23 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis
Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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> 
[mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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