RE: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

I support Tim's redraft (and Stephane's too, for that matter).  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 9:50 AM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board


Thanks Tim and Wolf for your comments.

The message as redrafted by Tim is clearly one that would be sent by me as 
Chair having identified what I think is information that the Board should have. 
The message contains no opinions, only statements of facts. It does not commit 
the Council in any direction, does not interfere with the work that the JAS has 
been tasked with doing, does not defend one position against another.

I would be happy to send such a reworded message, as I honestly believe there 
considering the way this report is being presented to the Board, it's best to 
ensure the information the Board has is as complete and unambiguous as possible.

However, I also do realise that this is an important topic for the NCSG. I am 
elected by all of you and do not wish for my personal actions to be considered 
by one group to be not taking sufficient account of their worries or issues.

Bill, you said in your last message that the NCSG did not oppose this, but 
would like to understand the value of doing this. I believe that this has 
already been answered. But perhaps the rationale I would have in sending the 
redrafted message Tim suggest as stated in the first part this email helps 
clarify further.

Please let me know what you, and other NCSG Councillors, think. You make the 
point that sending this message is useless because Olivier has already 
indicated in his message that the report hasn't been approved by the GNSO. I 
would ask you, even if that's the case and people felt confident that this 
message was stated clearly enough (which doesn't seem to be the case), what 
would be the harm in re-enphasising the same message? As long as the message 
itself doesn't change, and I am not saying anything different in my note, what 
would be the harm?

Thanks,

Stéphane



Le 11 mai 2011 à 15:15, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

> Looks good to me. If there is opposition to sending that message then 
> I suggest a revised message like this:
> 
> ----------
> The Board has received the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support 
> Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report which was sent to it 
> by ALAC. I understand that this report has not yet been approved by 
> ALAC.
> 
> I wish to highlight the fact that the GNSO Council has not approved 
> this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it.
> 
> The GNSO is one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG and 
> I am 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 believe this report is for information purposes only and not 
> intended to initiate any Board action at this time.
> 
> I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey this message to the 
> Board.
> 
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> GNSO Council Chair
> ---------
> 
> Tim
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board
> From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 7:58 am
> To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I've tried to make a note of the comments so far and adapt my draft as 
> required.
> 
> 
> I've taken the references to the dates out and added Wolf's suggested 
> sentence.
> 
> 
> Please let me know what you think.
> 
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Peter,
> 
> The Board has received the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support 
> Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report which was sent to it 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> This report is for information purposes only and not intended to 
> initiate any Board action at this time.
> 
> 
> I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's 
> message to the Board.
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> GNSO Council Chair
>