Re: [council] Draft message to the Board

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

Hi,

I am not sure the time argument is worth spending that much time on, but if it 
helps I can confirm that I got Rafik's message at 1:51 on May 8 (French time), 
which in UTC is the time Alan gives. The time given for Carlton's message is 
also correct.

I should add that in his message, Rafik also gave me a heads-up that he would 
be proposing a motion.

I responded to Rafik on the same day, a few hours later. I then forwarded 
ALAC's message to the Board to the Council list, and asked Glen to post the 
report on the Council website (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/).

Thanks,

Stéphane



Le 11 mai 2011 à 16:52, Alan Greenberg a écrit :

> 
> Regarding timing of the report versions:
> 
> A message pointing to the first official copy of the report from the WG on 
> the Wiki went to the Chairs of the ALAC and GNSO sent by Rafik at 23:51 UTC 
> on Saturday, May 7.
> 
> A copy in PDF format went to the two Chairs, sent by Carlton at 02:01 UTC on 
> Sun May 8 and was then forwarded to Council.
> 
> Note that Rafik and Carlton are the Co-chairs of the WG.
> 
> The ALAC report to the Board went to the Chair of the GNSO, sent by the Chair 
> of the ALAC at 08:57 on Tuesday, May 10 and was then forwarded to Council 
> (that presumes I read my time zones correctly. It was time-stamped 10:57 
> HAEC). This version corrected a number of typos and added a cover letter and 
> summary.
> 
> Some members of At-Large and the ALAC, including the Chair, had earlier 
> versions of the report since they either participated in the WG or watched 
> its progress. The same can be said of the GNSO and the GNSO Council.
> 
> If I got any of the time-zone conversions wrong, please let me know.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 11/05/2011 05:36 AM, Stephane Van Gelder wrote:
>> [text omitted]
>> 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...
>> 
>> Stephane
>