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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

OK with me.
 

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich


________________________________

        Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder
        Gesendet: Freitag, 20. Mai 2011 17:36
        An: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
        Betreff: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant 
Support Second Milestone Report
        
        
        All, 

        I have now had time to listen to most of the Council call. I would like 
to congratulate Jeff on doing such a good job of chairing the meeting in my 
stead, not that I had any doubt ;) My thanks Jeff for stepping in like that.

        I have listened to the Council discussions on the JAS. Let me add just 
a few words to your discussions. It is very clear to me that the Council chair 
may send an information message to the Board if he or she feels it is required. 
The onus here is on the word "information". The message should be factual only 
and contain nothing which could be construed as opinion. I was very comfortable 
with sending such a message to the Board in this case. However, once we started 
discussing, it became clear that some thought the proposed message not to be 
only informational. Also, one Councillor called for a vote. That being the 
case, I did not feel I could just brush these concerns aside and instead I 
proposed a vote on the list.

        The results of that vote are as follows: 6 in favor of message version 
A, 7 in favor of message version B and 1 in favor of "none of the above". To 
that tally we should add my vote, which would be for version B.

        So where does this leave us. Well, from both your discussions during 
the Council meeting and the vote and the discussion on the list, it is clear 
that there is an overwhelming majority for at least one thing: sending a 
message (Andrei's vote is really the only one that goes against this). In that 
regard, I concur with Jonathan who said on the call that we've probably done 
too much work on this already to just not do anything now.

        As for what message to send, that is not quite so easy. The Council is 
split, with a small majority leaning towards version B. On the call you all 
discussed adding the fact that the GNSO Council will vote on the JAS report at 
its next meeting, on June 9. I think this is once again purely factual so I 
would suggest we add this to the message. In fact, it seems to me that this new 
bit of information actually helps make the message more factual and less 
controversial. It helps do away, for example, with considerations of who 
chartered what and just keeps the message grounded in facts.

        So I would like to propose this draft, where we just tell the Board 
where we're at now and when they can expect something from us.

        Thanks,

        Stéphane




        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. A motion to do this was proposed at our May 19 
teleconference and tabled until our next meeting, on June 9.

        I will therefore look to get back to you after this meeting to provide 
you with an update on the GNSO Council's decision re the JAS report.
         
        I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to 
the Board.
         
        Best regards,
        Stephane van Gelder
        GNSO Council Chair