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

[<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi -
 
I share others' wishes that it be clear the GNSO Council, on behalf of
the GNSO community, has not fully reviewed the JAS report and as such is
not yet able to provide any advice or recommendations in that respect.
If the note merely said that, I would feel much more comfortable;
however, I have two concerns about sending it in its current form:
 
(1) To readers who may not know the scrupulous attention that Rafik and
Carlton paid to both the time as well as the proper recipients of the
group's report (as summarized by Alan in his last email), it could be
interpreted as the Council disapproving of the circumstances of its
receipt of the report.
 
(2) More than one Council member has raised questions about either the
need or the speed of a Council note/response, and a vote has been
requested. Doesn't this mean we need to have a vote (whether or not we
may individually feel it is necessary)?
 
I also think the Council should expressly acknowledge that Rafik and
Carlton as Co-Chairs definitely kept to the chartered process as to the
submission of the report.
 
Cheers
Mary

 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
To:"Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
CC:"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 5/11/2011 9:52 AM
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
>