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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ok.

 
 
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 11:36 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
Subject: 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