Re: [council] Draft message to the Board

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Bill.

There's been so much email traffic on this during what was, for me at any rate, 
the night, that I may not be able to address all the points raised. I apologise 
in advance and would ask anyone who feels that I have missed something 
important to put me straight.

On the statement itself, the reason as I have understood it from the comments 
made is that the report as sent by ALAC does not indicate in a way that is 
sufficiently clear that this report has neither been approved by ALAC or the 
GNSO. My understanding is that people thought this situation (a joint WG report 
is sent but has not been approved by either charters) to be weird enough to 
warrant a statement from us to the Board.

So I drafted the statement to try and move things forward. Although now there 
is clearly no full consensus on the statement as it stands, I do sense majority 
support for it. The WG guidelines talk of Rough Consensus (a position where a 
small minority disagrees but most agree) and my sense is that this is what we 
have here.

The Council has at times made statements with the caveat that some groups did 
not support, and this could be a way forward here. So far, if my count is 
correct (and once again please put me straight if it's not), we have support 
for the statement from Council reps of the IPC, the ISP, the BC, the RySG and 
the RrSG. So if the NCUC opposes (is that the case?), we could send a statement 
saying the NCUC opposes, and that there is Rough Consensus on the Council for 
this statement.

Does this sound reasonable?

On your comments to the current draft, I understand the dates discrepancy you 
highlight. It does pose a problem however, as the date I had put in the draft 
was the one on which the JAS sent us the report. As you correctly point out, 
ALAC sent it on May 6, while we only got it on May 9. That in itself is a 
problem, as it begs the question as to why one chartering entity got the report 
before the other did. As Jeff stated, this looks a lot like the situation we've 
just had with the ccNSO and the JIG. So trying to learn from our mistakes here, 
I had not wanted to get into that with our Board statement, but if you think we 
should, we can...

Stéphane



Le 11 mai 2011 à 09:16, William Drake a écrit :

> Hello
> 
> On May 11, 2011, at 12:25 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
> 
>> We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having 
>> been sent it directly from the WG.
> 
> Not true
>>  
>> 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?
> 
> Haven't they been already, more or less?  Olivier's cover texts says 
> 
> 
> This Report is submitted [BY ALAC] for consideration to the ICANN Board and 
> ICANN community. It was received by the At‐Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) 
> and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 6 May 2011 and is 
> currently undergoing evaluation. Comments from the At‐ Large Community are 
> currently being gathered until 13 May 2011 and will be transmitted to the 
> Board in a separate document. ALAC ratification will follow.
> Note that GNSO approval of this document is independent and has not reached 
> approval stage.
> 
> 
> Whereas Stephane's proposed note says
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Aside from the discrepancy on the receipt date, the letter seems redundant 
> with what they've already been told.  So what exactly is the point of 
> repeating it: to double check that board are able to correctly read plain 
> English, or rather to implicitly flag the general disposition of some 
> councilors toward the work of the group we chartered, and toward CWGs more 
> generally?
> 
> NCUC at least would like to understand what we'd be doing here and why so 
> that we can consult and reach a position per normal procedures.  As is, 
> there's no consensus to send this text now.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bil;
>