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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks both, Bill and Stéphane. I think this is acceptable.
 

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich 


________________________________

        Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 14:27
        An: William Drake
        Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
        
        
        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