RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report

["Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear friends, I still don't understand why we spending time around this letter 
instead of simple and short email Stephane to Peter saying "FYI Board, the JAS 
report is not adopted yet by gNSO Council" - that's it.

 

--andrei

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 9:22 PM
To: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support 
Second Milestone Report

 

One more vote for B

Berard

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant
> Support Second Milestone Report
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder
> Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 9:23 am
> To: "Neuman, Jeff" 
> Cc: "'tim@xxxxxxxxxxx'" , 
> "'owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" , 
> "'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" 
> 
> So that's one vote for version B, right?
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Le 17 mai 2011 à 17:54, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
> 
> Unfortunately, I cannot commit on behalf of the rysg to that last sentence on 
> "observance" and would prefer its deletion since on our last rysg call 
> questions were raised and I am not sure it adds to the substance of the note.
> 
> Thanks. 
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> 
> Vice President, Law & Policy
> 
> NeuStar, Inc.
> 
> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:43 AM
> To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> 
> Cc: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Council GNSO 
> 
> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant 
> Support Second Milestone Report
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks Tim, Jeff, Mary and Alan,
> 
> This would be the proposed message then. Either (I call this version A):
> 
> Dear Peter,
> 
>  
> We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD 
> Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the 
> other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it 
> has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move 
> forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and 
> hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as 
> possible. 
> 
> The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the 
> JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the GNSO-chartering process, in submitting 
> its Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review.
>  
> I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the 
> Board.
> 
> 
>  
> Best regards,
> Stephane van Gelder
> GNSO Council Chair
> 
> 
> Or (this my version B):
> 
> 
> Dear Peter,
> 
>  
> We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD 
> Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the 
> other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it 
> has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move 
> forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and 
> hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as 
> possible. 
> 
>  
> I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the 
> Board.
> 
> 
>  
> Best regards,
> Stephane van Gelder
> GNSO Council Chair
> 
> 
> 
> As Olga had requested a vote, I would like to suggest that we give ourselves 
> until Thursday's meeting to vote by return email to the list on either 
> version A or B, and whichever has the most votes is the one I send.
> 
> 
> Is that acceptable to everyone?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Le 17 mai 2011 à 14:12, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx a écrit :
> No objection if you remove the last sentence. There is no chartering process 
> for CWGs. The ALAC and GNSO could not even agree on what the charter should 
> be. And at least a few of us have concerns about how and why CWGs are being 
> formed.
> 
> 
> Tim
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder 
> 
> Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:45:21 +0200
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant 
> Support Second Milestone Report
> 
> Councillors,
> 
> Please find below the NCSG's suggestion on a message which I could send to 
> the Chairman of the Board in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO.
> 
> Thanks Mary for providing this draft.
> 
> Please let me have your comments.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Le 14 mai 2011 à 16:31, a écrit :
> 
> Hi - sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the Council letter; there 
> has been some lively discussion among some NCSG folks about it.
>  
> We suggest the following draft:
>  
> Dear Peter,
> 
>  
> We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New gTLD 
> Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report. As the 
> other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council notes that it 
> has not yet approved the Report. We acknowledge the Board's desire to move 
> forward with new gTLDs, including issues relating to applicant support, and 
> hope to provide the Board with our advice and recommendations as soon as 
> possible. 
> 
> The GNSO Council would also like to inform the Board that it appreciates the 
> JAS WG's scrupulous observance of the chartering process, in submitting its 
> Report simultaneously to ALAC and the GNSO for review. 
>  
> I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the 
> Board.
> 
> 
>  
> Best regards,
> Stephane van Gelder
> 
> 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 LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: 
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> 
> To:
> Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond , Council GNSO 
> 
> Date: 
> 5/14/2011 5:18 AM
> 
> Subject: 
> [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second 
> Milestone ReportThanks Olivier.
> 
> 
> GNSO Council, FYI.
> 
> 
> A good weekend to all.
> 
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Le 14 mai 2011 à 11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit :
> 
> 
> Dear Stéphane,
> 
> please find enclosed, a copy of our follow-up message to the Board including 
> ALAC comments.
> Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any query about its 
> contents.
> Have a good week-end!
> Kind regards,
> 
> Olivier
> 
> -------- Message original --------
> 
> 
> 
> Sujet:
> Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
> 
> Date :
> Fri, 13 May 2011 20:26:34 -0700
> 
> De :
> ICANN At-Large Staff 
> 
> Pour :
> Secretary 
> 
> Copie à :
> ocl@xxxxxxx , carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx , rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx , ICANN 
> At-Large Staff
> 
> Dear all,  
> 
> 
> The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the 
> At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC):
> 
> The Second Milestone Report of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support 
> Working Group ( JAS WG), with a revised ALAC introduction (entitled �Status 
> of this Document�); and
> The Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone 
> Report.  
> 
> We request that these documents (attached here) be forwarded to the members 
> of the ICANN Board.   
> 
> The Second Milestone Report was received by the ALAC and the Generic Names 
> Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 7 May 2011.  Then, the At-Large staff, on 
> behalf of the ALAC, initially forwarded this Report to the Board on 9 May 
> 2011.  Please note that the Report itself has not been substantively changed 
> since the Board initially received it on 9 May.
> 
> During the period 7�13 May, comments on the Report were collected from the 
> At-Large Community.  These comments are the basis for the Statement of the 
> ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report attached here.
> 
> The ALAC ratification process for the Second Milestone Report and the ALAC 
> Statement will begin on 14 May, and the results will be forwarded to the 
> Board.
>            
> Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted 
> independently and has not reached the approval stage. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and Marilyn 
> Vernon
> ICANN At-Large Staff
> 
> email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org
> website: www.atlarge.icann.org
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>