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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx>]

Hi

On May 11, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> Bill, you said in your last message that the NCSG did not oppose this

Slightly different, we have not taken a position yet

> , but would like to understand the value of doing this. I believe that this 
> has already been answered.

Sorry, could you remind me where that happened?  

> 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?

I think people read things contextually.  The recipients would have to be brain 
dead not to know that the JAS has taken a lot of substantive and procedural 
criticism in the current Council, so the Council going out of its way to more 
sharply repeat what ALAC already said about its status in the manner proposed 
wouldn't read, at least to me, like a positive we are in receipt of the report, 
thank the group for its hard work, but need time to read and react to it sort 
of thing.

On May 11, 2011, at 5:59 PM, <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> 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.

As I said…tone could be more consistent with the usual 
>  
> (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 wondered about that too, doesn't a call for a vote trigger one?  
>  
> 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.

That'd be a nice gesture.  Prior co-chairs also put in an enormous amount of 
volunteer labor too.

Cheers,

Bill
>