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

[<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

As I'd indicated on the Council call, I believe it's our duty to correct
factual misrepresentations that we know have taken place by/within the
GNSO community. As such, I support sending the letter as Stephane now
has it (i.e. including Bill's language).
 
I note also that neither this version nor my earlier attempts to
achieve a similar result are "NCSG positions" as such, although I
believe a number of other NCSG Councilors share my view.
 
As Jeff points out, we are not in a position to alter what ALAC/At
Large did as part of their process. We are, however, obliged not to
permit continued misperceptions about what happened to circulate amongst
our community.
 
Cheers
Mary

 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, <william.drake@xxxxxx>
CC:<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 5/23/2011 9:10 AM
Subject: AW: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
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