<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
Tim. it is ok, As You Know the personal opinion in blogs, not necessarily are
make as members of any organizacion or constituency. This was what I wanted to
clarify, because it seems to me was needed. and not every NCSG members are
involved in those comments. thanks
Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
NCA GNSO Council - ICANN
former ALAC member by LACRALO
Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
http://ar.ageiadensi.org
Subject: Re: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
To: carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx; hughesdeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx;
stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; knobenw@xxxxxxxxxx; william.drake@xxxxxx
CC: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:17:56 +0000
Carlos,
Was referring to Avri's posts. Assumed those were general views of NCSG.
Apologize if not. But my point about what the Council is supposed to be doing
remains.
TimFrom: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:05:32 +0000To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
<hughesdeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; <knobenw@xxxxxxxxxx>;
william Drake<william.drake@xxxxxx>Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Subject: RE: :
[council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
Tim: I would like if you could clarify the sentence "We could likely argue for
weeks about the inaccuracy of some of the NCSG comments in blogs, etc. about
contracted parties" . I consider necessary determinate in a clear way the names
of NCSG`s, and facts wich you mention, because you can not involve every NCSG
members on this. And when you say "some" unfortunatelly you are mentioning to
all. thanks
Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
NCA GNSO Council - ICANN
former ALAC member by LACRALO
Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
http://ar.ageiadensi.org
Subject: Re: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
To: HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx; stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx;
william.drake@xxxxxx
CC: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:29:28 +0000
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
From: <HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 10:17:33 -0400To: <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
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|