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

[tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]

If that is our duty we will have little time for anything else. We could likely 
argue for weeks about the inaccuracy of some of the NCSG comments in blogs, 
etc. about contracted parties. Fortunately, our charge is fairly simple, manage 
the policy process. Let's just stick to that,  please.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: <HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 10:17:33 
To: <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; 
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>; <william.drake@xxxxxx>
Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report

Mary,

I agree and support your sentiments.

Debbie

Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel 
American Red Cross 

Office of the General Counsel  
2025 E Street, NW 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
Phone: (202) 303-5356 
Fax: (202) 303-0143 
HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  

 

________________________________

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:04 AM
To: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; william.drake@xxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re:: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report

 

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 LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected 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