Re: AW: [council] Adrian's gameplan

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1,

Rafik

2011/6/19 William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx>

> This version is fine, thanks Mary
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Jun 18, 2011, at 5:25 PM, <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> <
> Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I don't have a problem with that, Wolf-Ulrich i.e. your insertion and
> deleting the reference to "on behalf of our Cs and SGs".
>
> If I may, we can also consider deleting the last part of my draft, which
> means the statement will now read (with Wolf-Ulrich's suggested changes
> included):
>
> "The GNSO Council wishes to reiterate its support for the work of the Joint
> Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG). We unanimously 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, inter alia 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."
>
>
>
>
>  *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:* <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <
> owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> *CC:* <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> *Date: * 
> 6/18/2011
> 5:20 AM *Subject: * AW: [council] Adrian's gameplan
> 1. See my insertion. I think "needy applicants" is to be seen in a wider
> range - as referenced in the JAS report, too.
>
> 2. The term "and on behalf of all our Constituencies and Stakeholder
> Groups" means (time-eating) co-ordination
>
> Kind regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *Von:* owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Im Auftrag von *Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 18. Juni 2011 10:58
> *An:* owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* 'GNSO Council List'
> *Betreff:* RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan
>
>  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 [WUK: ]  - inter alia from developing regions
> of the world[WUK: ]  -  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 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: * 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 AM *Subject: * RE:
> [council] Adrian's gameplanOr 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 <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<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<andrei@xxxxxxxx>
> >>
>
> To:
>
> "'Adrian Kinderis'" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<
> mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>>, "'GNSO
> Council List'" 
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<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<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
>
>
>
>
>