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

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

Thanks for that positive approach Bill and sorry if I sounded frustrated.

It would help me a great deal if the NCSG could propose a draft that you would 
be comfortable with.

Thanks,

Stéphane



Le 11 mai 2011 à 18:53, William Drake a écrit :

> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>