Re: [council] Draft message to the Board

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx>]

HI S

> 
>  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?)

I didn't say we oppose yet, but rather that in reviewing it to come to a 
position we would like to understand the thinking as to why this is necessary, 
given Olivier's already included a disclaimer on exactly the same points.  If 
we're adding distinctive value by repeating the case, what exactly is it?

> 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?

Neither would strike me as being particularly accurate at this time.  We want 
to understand the purpose of the letter and don't see the need to rush this off 
before we're able to consult internally.  Moreover, Olga has also expressed 
concerns about rushing and asked whether a vote isn't needed.  So if you have 
perhaps 5 out of 20 voting members (maybe more, we've not heard from other 
NCSGer) who are not yet prepared to send such a letter, that doesn't quite meet 
a healthy threshold for declaring "rough consensus" based on "the sense of the 
group."
> 
> 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…

Could avoid the issue by not referencing dates at all…?  What matters is 
neither side's had time yet read and approve it, as Olivier indicated.

Cheers,

Bill

PS; In the meanwhile I see Rafik has submitted a motion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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;
>> 
>