RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mary, it sounds like a pre-endorsement of the JAS WG final report.
That's not what I understood this was about. I certainly do believe it
is an important issue, but I question whether a CWG/JWG was the right
mechanism to resolve the issue. In fact, I am convinced it was not. I do
appreciate and thank the JAS members for their hard work, they have been
diligent about trying to address the issue, but I am not confident,
based on what I have seen so far that, that the RrSG will endorse he
recommendations. I would like to suggest something more like the
following:

"We unanimously, and on behalf of all our Constituencies and Stakeholder
Groups, believe that it is important for the new gTLD program to be
globally inclusive, and to have as part of the implementation plan
meaningful and workable mechanisms which will assist potential needy
applicants from developing regions of the world participate in the first
round of the new gTLD program as fully as possible without delaying
rollout of the program any further. We reiterate also our thanks to the
members of the JAS WG for all their hard work in preparing the two
Milestone Reports, and look forward to receiving its Final Report so
that recommendations for ensuring equal access to the new gTLD program
can be discussed."


Tim
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan
From: <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, June 18, 2011 3:58 am
To: "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'GNSO Council List'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

How about -
 
"The GNSO Council wishes to reiterate its support for the work of the
Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG). We unanimously, and on
behalf of all our Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups, believe that it
is important for the new gTLD program to be globally inclusive, and to
have as part of the implementation plan meaningful and workable
mechanisms which will assist potential needy applicants from developing
regions of the world participate in the first round of the new gTLD
program as fully as possible. We reiterate also our thanks to the
members of the JAS WG for all their hard work in preparing the two
Milestone Reports, and look forward to receiving its Final Report so
that recommendations for ensuring equal access to the new gTLD program
can be discussed and implemented."  
 
I would suggest that, if we can, a statement such as this (tweaked as
necessary) be issued to the community (including the Board and the GAC)
as soon as possible :)
 
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: Rosemary Sinclair <rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx>To:Adrian
Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "tim@xxxxxxxxxxx"
<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>,
"owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>CC:"'GNSO Council List'"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Date: 6/18/2011 4:48 AMSubject: RE: [council]
Adrian's gameplan
Or that using a CWG when we do not have clear, agreed processes made
progress on an issue where there was common commitment to doing
"something" much more difficult for the WG members and the Council

Given that we now have a unanimous position supporting the group's work
I think Mary's original proposal was very useful as it took the content
out of play and left our ongoing discussion to focus on process
management issues....in this case implementation proposals rather than
policy proposals....

I'd support Mary's original version

Cheers

Rosemary
________________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis [adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 5:48 PM
To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan

+1

Adrian Kinderis


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, 18 June 2011 3:48 PM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: Re: [council] Adrian's gameplan

And that a cwg or jwg may not have been the appropriate mechanism for
the issue.

Tim
________________________________
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:09:47 +0200
To: <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'GNSO Council List'<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Adrian's gameplan

Thanks Mary,

Would you be up for drafting a proposed statement, for the Council's
consideration?

Stéphane



Le 18 juin 2011 à 09:01,
<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>> a écrit :


In partial follow-up to Adrian's point about possible deliverables and
courses of action, I'd offer the suggestion I made during today's
discussion, viz., that the GNSO Council consider circulating a brief
statement to the ICANN community, stating its support for the work being
done by the JAS WG and reiterating the importance of the issues they are
considering.




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<mailto: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:

"Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei@xxxxxxxx<mailto:andrei@xxxxxxxx>>

To:

"'Adrian Kinderis'"
<adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, "'GNSO
Council List'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>

Date:

6/18/2011 1:13 AM

Subject:

RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan

I think adding "set and bind to the timelines" would be beneficial.  Or
there will be always a workaround for "endless discussion".

--andrei

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 12:56 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] Adrian's gameplan

As I discussed in the Working Session today.

The four issues based on this discussion (as I see them);

-          Stephane speaking directly to the Board
-          Katim’s email and the issues of the JAS WG
o   Processes within the Council
-          The future of Cross Community Working Groups
o   Publishing of reports etc
-          The optics of the GNSO Council and the promotion of its
internal processes and representation
o   Multi stakeholder make up
o   Differing views/ differing

It would be best, I think, to try and get some deliverables and courses
of action in order to promote resolution.

Adrian Kinderis