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

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
+ 1 for A
best
Olga

2011/5/19 Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>

>
> I vote for A.
>
> --Wendy
>
>
> On 05/18/2011 11:16 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
>
>> and another one.
>>
>> K
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:22 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx +1 914-374-0613
> Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>
>
>