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

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

In the interest of clarity, I believe this is the excerpt from the blog post 
that Bill is referring to:

Support for Needy Applicants
ICANN is awaiting guidance from the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group 
who submitted their report directly to the Board over this past weekend. It's 
not clear why the GNSO was circumvented from the process, or how that will be 
addressed by the Board. While the ICANN Community all seem to agree there needs 
to be a mechanism for providing support to needy applicants, a workable 
solution needs to be found. I've not read the full report yet, but am hopeful.


And in the interest of consensus and moving ahead with this, Jeff or anyone 
else, is it really such a big problem to add Bill's sentence and send the 
message as suggested in my latest draft?

If we are worried about the fact that the Board could get the wrong idea about 
the report and not understand that it hasn't been approved yet, which is the 
rationale behind us working on this message in the first place, then it does 
not seem totally out of place to also address another misunderstanding that 
some worry might exist, does it?

Even if we don't all think the misunderstanding exists. Let's not forget that 
some of us didn't think that the first misunderstanding (about the Board not 
getting the fact that the report hasn't been approved) existed and yet, they 
still agreed to send the message.

So my suggestion is that the message as it currently stands incorporates all 
these varied POVs and allows us to move forwards.

Thanks,

Stéphane



Le 23 mai 2011 à 14:17, William Drake a écrit :

> Hi Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> On May 23, 2011, at 2:03 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> could you please provide me with the "false information circulated"? Sorry, 
>> I forget too many things.
> 
> I believe we discussed previously the fact that there were people running 
> around saying that JAS had directly submitted its report to the Board in some 
> sort of dastardly plot to circumvent the GNSO Council.  These rumblings were 
> then put into words on a widely read blog 
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110512_icann_tiptoes_through_political_minefield_new_tlds/
>  which prompted Alan and other JAS members to issue corrections.  I don't 
> know whether those corrections have been widely read and internalized or if 
> there are still people out there laboring under misunderstandings.  But I 
> would think the Council would have a self-interest in stating for the record 
> that the process was followed and it was not dissed.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill