<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.17023" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=528500416-11052011><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>The lesson for me is that we need to include in the
charters of these WGs the requirement that the WG report cannot be sent to the
Board or put out for public comment until ALL/BOTH participating SOs and
ACs have reviewed and acted on the report. </FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> ching.chiao@gmail.com
[mailto:ching.chiao@gmail.com] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Ching Chiao<BR><B>Sent:</B>
Wednesday, May 11, 2011 12:04 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Rosette, Kristina<BR><B>Cc:</B>
Stéphane Van Gelder; Tim Ruiz; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO<BR><B>Subject:</B>
Re: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>+1 ..... and we do not need to vote on this (agree on Tim's
previous note).
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>On the side note, Stéphane I'd like to reiterate that JIG motion is
not a "mistake" but a good lesson learned. In fact as many have gradually
learned that two SOs are really on separate track of development and we sort
out with great communication between Lesley and you. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I owe you / the Council a draft statement and am working on
it. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Ching</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Rosette, Kristina
<SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:krosette@cov.com">krosette@cov.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><BR>I
support Tim's redraft (and Stephane's too, for that matter).<BR>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: <A
href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A>
[mailto:<A
href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder<BR>Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 9:50
AM<BR>To: Tim Ruiz<BR>Cc: <A
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</A>
GNSO<BR>Subject: Re: [council] Re: Draft message to the
Board<BR><BR><BR>Thanks Tim and Wolf for your comments.<BR><BR>The message
as redrafted by Tim is clearly one that would be sent by me as Chair having
identified what I think is information that the Board should have. The
message contains no opinions, only statements of facts. It does not commit
the Council in any direction, does not interfere with the work that the JAS
has been tasked with doing, does not defend one position against
another.<BR><BR>I would be happy to send such a reworded message, as I
honestly believe there considering the way this report is being presented to
the Board, it's best to ensure the information the Board has is as complete
and unambiguous as possible.<BR><BR>However, I also do realise that this is
an important topic for the NCSG. I am elected by all of you and do not wish
for my personal actions to be considered by one group to be not taking
sufficient account of their worries or issues.<BR><BR>Bill, you said in your
last message that the NCSG did not oppose this, but would like to understand
the value of doing this. I believe that this has already been answered. But
perhaps the rationale I would have in sending the redrafted message Tim
suggest as stated in the first part this email helps clarify
further.<BR><BR>Please let me know what you, and other NCSG Councillors,
think. You make the point that sending this message is useless because
Olivier has already indicated in his message that the report hasn't been
approved by the GNSO. I would ask you, even if that's the case and people
felt confident that this message was stated clearly enough (which doesn't
seem to be the case), what would be the harm in re-enphasising the same
message? As long as the message itself doesn't change, and I am not saying
anything different in my note, what would be the
harm?<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR><BR>Stéphane<BR><BR><BR><BR>Le 11 mai 2011 à 15:15,
Tim Ruiz a écrit :<BR><BR>> Looks good to me. If there is opposition to
sending that message then<BR>> I suggest a revised message like
this:<BR>><BR>> ----------<BR>> The Board has received the Joint
SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support<BR>> Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second
Milestone Report which was sent to it<BR>> by ALAC. I understand that
this report has not yet been approved by<BR>> ALAC.<BR>><BR>> I
wish to highlight the fact that the GNSO Council has not approved<BR>>
this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received
it.<BR>><BR>> The GNSO is one of the two chartering organisations of
the JAS WG and<BR>> I am keen to ensure that the Board understands the
nature of the<BR>> report that it has been sent, and the circumstances
under which it received it.<BR>><BR>> I believe this report is for
information purposes only and not<BR>> intended to initiate any Board
action at this time.<BR>><BR>> I would be grateful therefore, if you
could convey this message to the<BR>> Board.<BR>><BR>> Stéphane Van
Gelder<BR>> GNSO Council Chair<BR>> ---------<BR>><BR>>
Tim<BR>><BR>> -------- Original Message --------<BR>> Subject:
[council] Re: Draft message to the Board<BR>> From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder
<<A
href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com">stephane.vangelder@indom.com</A>><BR>>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 7:58 am<BR>> To: "<A
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</A> GNSO" <<A
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</A>><BR>><BR>>
Hi all,<BR>><BR>> I've tried to make a note of the comments so far and
adapt my draft as<BR>> required.<BR>><BR>><BR>> I've taken the
references to the dates out and added Wolf's suggested<BR>>
sentence.<BR>><BR>><BR>> Please let me know what you
think.<BR>><BR>><BR>>
Stéphane<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>
Dear Peter,<BR>><BR>> The Board has received the Joint SO/AC New gTLD
Applicant Support<BR>> Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report
which was sent to it<BR>> by ALAC. We understand that this report has not
yet been approved by<BR>> ALAC.<BR>><BR>><BR>> The GNSO Council
wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved<BR>> this report
yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received
it.<BR>><BR>><BR>> As one of the two chartering organisations of
the JAS WG, the GNSO is<BR>> keen to ensure that the Board understands
the nature of the report<BR>> that it has been sent, and the
circumstances under which it received it.<BR>><BR>><BR>> This
report is for information purposes only and not intended to<BR>> initiate
any Board action at this time.<BR>><BR>><BR>> I would be grateful
therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's<BR>> message to the
Board.<BR>><BR>><BR>> Best,<BR>><BR>><BR>> Stéphane Van
Gelder<BR>> GNSO Council
Chair<BR>><BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all><BR>-- <BR>
<DIV>Ching CHIAO</DIV>
<DIV>Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD.</DIV>
<DIV>Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group</DIV>
<DIV>Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG</DIV>
<DIV>=====================================</DIV>
<DIV>Email: <A href="mailto:chiao@registry.asia"
target=_blank>chiao@registry.asia</A> Skype: chiao_rw</DIV>
<DIV>Mobile: +886-918211372 | +86-13520187032</DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://www.registry.asia" target=_blank>www.registry.asia</A>
| <A href="http://www.apngcamp.asia"
target=_blank>www.apngcamp.asia</A></DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://www.facebook.com/ching.chiao"
target=_blank>www.facebook.com/ching.chiao</A></DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>