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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

The NCSG approved sending the message, our discussions being around what 
message to send.

That was the purpose of my previous email.

Are you speaking on behalf of the NCSG when you say you do not approve sending 
this message?

Stéphane



Le 23 mai 2011 à 12:09, Rafik Dammak a écrit :

> Hi Stephane,
> 
> recalling the last gnso council call, I don't think that there was consensus 
> about approving sending the letter. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> 
> 2011/5/21 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Thanks to all those who have responded. So far, everyone is OK with the 
> proposed message. Can I ask that if there is any opposition to me sending 
> this message, this be voiced by COB Monday May 23?
> 
> Absent strong opposition, I will look to sending the message to PDT on 
> Tuesday.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> Le 21 mai 2011 à 05:30, Ching Chiao a écrit :
> 
> >
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
>