<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: AW: [council] GNSO Council message of thanks to the JAS WG
Hi
I'm happy to be able to agree with Jeff on something with respect to JAS. I
don't see the point of sending the revised version below. If the Council
cannot "reiterate its support for the work of the JAS," the rest isn't going to
affect the widespread perceptions.
Best
Bill
On Jun 21, 2011, at 4:47 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> + ISPCP
>
> Kind regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im
> Auftrag von Rosette, Kristina
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Juni 2011 10:24
> An: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: RE: [council] GNSO Council message of thanks to the JAS WG
>
> IPC supports this statement.
>
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 4:44 AM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council message of thanks to the JAS WG
>
> 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 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: "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:>"
> >> 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
>>>
|