<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] GNSO Council message of thanks to the JAS WG
FYI, after consulting with my group, I am happy to report that the RrSG would
support the message as edited by Tim.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 19 juin 2011 à 13:36, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :
> I would agree with Tim on this as being a compromise that we can possibly all
> get behind, but we are not there yet. We haven't had time to consult with the
> registrars and we have yet to hear from all the GNSO groups.
>
> However, if that can happen soon, I would certainly be very happy to be able
> to distribute a statement thanking the JAS WG and highlighting the importance
> the GNSO places on the fact that the new gTLD program be globally inclusive,
> as your Chair.
>
> If we can get agreement on this soon, I would suggest this be posted on the
> Council's website and also sent by me to the Chairs of the Board, the GAC,
> the ccNSO and ALAC.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Stéphane
>
>
>
> Le 19 juin 2011 à 08:39, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx a écrit :
>
>>
>> We're looking for something we can all agree on, right? It's a concern that
>> I think the RrSG will have. So my question is does removing make it that
>> much difference?
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:33:36
>> To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
>> <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: 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
>>>
|