Re: [council] Draft message to the Board

[tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]

I meant no opinions or views.
-----Original Message-----
From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 23:29:47 
To: Rafik Dammak<rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>; <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
Adrian Kinderis<adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Olga Cavalli<olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>; Stéphane Van 
Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
GNSO<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board

Seems we are splitting hairs here. The point is the Board has the report. The 
message Adrian proposed and drafted by Stephane states only facts not opinions 
or. Iews. I don't see any issue with transmitting it without a formal vote.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 08:05:01 
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

not sure which email are you talking about, can you forward or copy-paste
it,
read again please carefully the email forwarded by Stephane, form which I
copied the first part
"The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Second Milestone Report by the Joint
SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG) (attached).  We
request that this Report be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Boad",
 that is at-large, not the WG which sent the report to the ICANN board.

Rafik


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

> Let me be clear.
>
>
>
> Rafik, how did the JAS report get in the hands of the ICANN Board?
>
>
>
> The rest of my email was copied and pasted from the report stating that the
> report is submitted to the Board from the WG, not to the GNSO or ALAC.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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
> Web: www.ausregistry.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/>
>
>
>
> - Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter:
> 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:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:51 PM
>
> *To:* Adrian Kinderis
> *Cc:* Olga Cavalli; Stéphane Van Gelder; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
> *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>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>