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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx>]

Don't be frustrated.  Mary asked a procedural point and I just noted it had me 
wondering too.  When a Councilor calls for a vote on sending a message that 
some of us plainly read differently than others, isn't that the sort of default 
solution?  I don't have the relevant bits of historical practice or the OP 
ingrained in my head at the moment, actually doing three other things.

Personally, my view would be that if we must have a letter saying dear board 
when ALAC said the GNSO has not reviewed or approved we want you to know that 
we really have not reviewed or approved, why not soften it a little with the 
standard tone and acknowledgements and we'll all be happy campers and the vote 
question would be moot.


On May 11, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> Let me get this straight, you're asking for a vote to give me authorization 
> to send the email as drafted by Tim, which would be an email from the Council 
> Chair to the Board? So what you're telling me, as Chair, is that I can't send 
> a factual email without a Council vote?
> 
> Do you also expect the Council to vote on whether individual groups should be 
> allowed to send a message, as Kristina has suggested the IPC might do?
> 
> I am happy to have a vote if someone requests one, but I feel this is the 
> process overkill that some have been talking about.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> Le 11 mai 2011 à 18:31, William Drake a écrit :
> 
>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>