AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill,
 
could you please provide me with the "false information circulated"? Sorry, I 
forget too many things.
 

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich 


________________________________

        Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder
        Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 13:43
        An: William Drake
        Cc: GNSO Council
        Betreff: Re: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
        
        
        Thanks Bill. 

        The message would then become:

        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.

        In light of false information that has been circulated on the matter, 
the GNSO Council would also like to confirm that the JAS WG simultaneously 
submitted its Report 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


        If anyone disagrees with the content of the message as stated, please 
say so by COB tonight so that I can send the message tomorrow as planned.

        Stéphane

        Le 23 mai 2011 à 13:16, William Drake a écrit :


                Hi Stéphane
                
                On May 23, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
                
                

                        Discussions by them of a "way forward" on a report that 
hasn't yet been approved by us may just be thinking ahead, or it may be that 
they have not cottoned on to the fact that the report hasn't yet been 
approved...
                        


                I suspect they do understand what is plainly obvious but 
believe consideration of a "way forward" is necessary nonetheless.  Which would 
be a sound conclusion, given the serious need to broaden both international 
participation in gTLDs and political support for ICANN.  
                
                With regard to your letter, may I suggest a small and 
incontrovertibly factual amendment that would be entirely in keeping with your 
purely informational objective here?  How's about adding the following:  "In 
light of false information that has been circulated on the matter, the GNSO 
Council would also like to confirm that the JAS WG simultaneously submitted its 
Report to ALAC and the GNSO for review."  This is should eliminate the NC 
opposition to a letter (haven't asked, but believe so).
                
                Bill