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

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

Thanks for that clarification Mary and for your support of the text as stated.

Stéphane



Le 23 mai 2011 à 16:04, <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 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
>