<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
AW: AW: [council] Adrian's gameplan
Tim, I don't understand the 1st sentence - "The GNSO Council wishes to
reiterate its support for the work of the
Joint Applicant Support Working Group" - as support of all of the JAS-WG
results (which could be seen as pre-endorsement) rather than as an ecouragement
to continue in finding acceptable solutions for a given task.
Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011 01:09
An: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich;
Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: AW: [council] Adrian's gameplan
Sorry Mary, I didn't get to the end of the thread before replying. If
you drop the first sentence, and add the without further delay as in my
first suggestion, I think the RrSG would be more likely to approve. So
it would be:
"The GNSO Council unanimously believes 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 without delaying the program rollout 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."
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: AW: [council] Adrian's gameplan
From: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, June 18, 2011 4:35 am
To: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
I am good with this.
Berard
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: AW: [council] Adrian's gameplan
From: <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, June 18, 2011 2:25 am
To: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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 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: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>To:<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
<owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>CC:<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Date: 6/18/2011
5:20 AMSubject: 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 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 <"
target=_blank>rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx>;To:Adrian Kinderis
<adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "tim@xxxxxxxxxxx" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Stéphane Van Gelder<" target=_blank>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 <"
target=_blank>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:>"
target=_blank>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:";
target=_blank>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:>"
target=_blank>andrei@xxxxxxxx>>;
To:
"'Adrian Kinderis'" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:>"
target=_blank>adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>;, "'GNSO Council List'"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:>"
target=_blank>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:";
target=_blank>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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|