<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hello<br><div>
</div>
<br><div><div>On May 11, 2011, at 12:25 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div lang="EN-AU" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0cm; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG.</span></div></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div>Not true<br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div lang="EN-AU" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0cm; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0cm; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0cm; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0cm; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0cm; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">These are facts. Why can’t they be stated?</span></div></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div>Haven't they been already, more or less? Olivier's cover texts says </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>This Report is submitted <b>[BY ALAC]</b> for consideration to the ICANN Board and ICANN community. It was received by the At‐Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 6 May 2011 and is <b>currently undergoing evaluation. </b>Comments from the At‐ Large Community are currently being gathered until 13 May 2011 and will be transmitted to the Board in a separate document. ALAC ratification will follow.<br><b>Note that GNSO approval of this document is independent and has not reached approval stage</b>.</div><div><br><div><br></div><div>Whereas Stephane's proposed note says</div><div><br></div><div>On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report <b>has not yet been approved by ALAC.</b><br> <br>The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that <b>it has not approved this report yet either.</b> In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011.</div><div><br></div><br></div><div>Aside from the discrepancy on the receipt date, the letter seems redundant with what they've already been told. So what exactly is the point of repeating it: to double check that board are able to correctly read plain English, or rather to implicitly flag the general disposition of some councilors toward the work of the group we chartered, and toward CWGs more generally?</div><div><br></div><div>NCUC at least would like to understand what we'd be doing here and why so that we can consult and reach a position per normal procedures. As is, there's no consensus to send this text now.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Bil;</div><br></body></html>