RE: [council] GNSO Council message of thanks to the JAS WG

[<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

It's true that the developments today may have removed some of the
reasons for sending this (my initial hope had been to have consensus on
the original statement before today). However, the "optics" issue and
the perception amongst some Board and community members that the GNSO,
and the Council in particular, continue NOT to support the work of the
JAS WG persist. In addition, several Board members today referred to the
group and its work (as did the resolution itself). 
 
In view of the Board's resolutions this morning, I'd remove the
reference to participating in the first round "without delaying the
rollout any further"; the statement would therefore read:
 
"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. We thank 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: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:John Berard <johnberard@xxxxxxx>, "stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx"
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 6/20/2011 3:29 AM
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council message of thanks to the JAS WG

And to add to that, given the ICANN Board resolution and the amount of
work ahead of us to wrap this up, what is the purpose of sending this?
 
More specifically, we need to have the final JAS report with all
feedback from the community, GNSO approval of the final report, and
staff implementation details in time to the Board by the ICANN meeting
in Dakar.  
 
We should focus on that as opposed to issuing a statement.
 
Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
Please note new address:  21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166    

 


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you
have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately and delete the original message.
 
 
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Berard
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 3:14 PM
To: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council message of thanks to the JAS WG

 

So, for the sake of clarity, what the heck does the current version
look like?

Berard

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sun, Jun 19, 2011 11:59 pm
Subject: [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:>" (
mailto:%3E%22? )>> 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:"; (
mailto:%22? )>> 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:>" ( mailto:%3E%22? )>>
target=_blank>andrei@xxxxxxxx>>;>> >> To:>> >> "'Adrian Kinderis'"
<adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:>" ( mailto:%3E%22? )>>
target=_blank>adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>;, "'GNSO Council List'">>
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:>" ( mailto:%3E%22? )>>
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:"; ( mailto:%22? )>>
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>> >> >