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

[Ching Chiao <chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

OK too.

On Saturday, May 21, 2011, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>

-- 
Ching CHIAO
Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD.
Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group
Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG
=====================================
Email: chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx     Skype: chiao_rw
Mobile: +886-918211372  |  +86-13520187032
www.registry.asia | www.apngcamp.asia
www.facebook.com/ching.chiao