<div dir="ltr">Hi Stephane,<div><br></div><div>recalling the last gnso council call, I don't think that there was consensus about approving sending the letter. </div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br clear="all">
<div dir="ltr"><div>Rafik<br></div></div><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/5/21 Stéphane Van Gelder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com">stephane.vangelder@indom.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
Thanks to all those who have responded. So far, everyone is OK with the proposed message. Can I ask that if there is any opposition to me sending this message, this be voiced by COB Monday May 23?<br>
<br>
Absent strong opposition, I will look to sending the message to PDT on Tuesday.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Stéphane<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Le 21 mai 2011 à 05:30, Ching Chiao a écrit :<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
><br>
> OK too.<br>
><br>
> On Saturday, May 21, 2011, Tim Ruiz <<a href="mailto:tim@godaddy.com">tim@godaddy.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Ok.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><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>]<br>
>> On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder<br>
>> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 11:36 AM<br>
>> To: <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a> GNSO<br>
>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant<br>
>> Support Second Milestone Report<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> All,<br>
>><br>
>> I have now had time to listen to most of the Council call. I would like<br>
>> to congratulate Jeff on doing such a good job of chairing the meeting in<br>
>> my stead, not that I had any doubt ;) My thanks Jeff for stepping in<br>
>> like that.<br>
>><br>
>> I have listened to the Council discussions on the JAS. Let me add just a<br>
>> few words to your discussions. It is very clear to me that the Council<br>
>> chair may send an information message to the Board if he or she feels it<br>
>> is required. The onus here is on the word "information". The message<br>
>> should be factual only and contain nothing which could be construed as<br>
>> opinion. I was very comfortable with sending such a message to the Board<br>
>> in this case. However, once we started discussing, it became clear that<br>
>> some thought the proposed message not to be only informational. Also,<br>
>> one Councillor called for a vote. That being the case, I did not feel I<br>
>> could just brush these concerns aside and instead I proposed a vote on<br>
>> the list.<br>
>><br>
>> The results of that vote are as follows: 6 in favor of message version<br>
>> A, 7 in favor of message version B and 1 in favor of "none of the<br>
>> above". To that tally we should add my vote, which would be for version<br>
>> B.<br>
>><br>
>> So where does this leave us. Well, from both your discussions during the<br>
>> Council meeting and the vote and the discussion on the list, it is clear<br>
>> that there is an overwhelming majority for at least one thing: sending a<br>
>> message (Andrei's vote is really the only one that goes against this).<br>
>> In that regard, I concur with Jonathan who said on the call that we've<br>
>> probably done too much work on this already to just not do anything now.<br>
>><br>
>> As for what message to send, that is not quite so easy. The Council is<br>
>> split, with a small majority leaning towards version B. On the call you<br>
>> all discussed adding the fact that the GNSO Council will vote on the JAS<br>
>> report at its next meeting, on June 9. I think this is once again purely<br>
>> factual so I would suggest we add this to the message. In fact, it seems<br>
>> to me that this new bit of information actually helps make the message<br>
>> more factual and less controversial. It helps do away, for example, with<br>
>> considerations of who chartered what and just keeps the message grounded<br>
>> in facts.<br>
>><br>
>> So I would like to propose this draft, where we just tell the Board<br>
>> where we're at now and when they can expect something from us.<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks,<br>
>><br>
>> Stéphane<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Dear Peter,<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New<br>
>> gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report.<br>
>> As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council<br>
>> notes that it has not yet approved the Report. A motion to do this was<br>
>> proposed at our May 19 teleconference and tabled until our next meeting,<br>
>> on June 9.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I will therefore look to get back to you after this meeting to provide<br>
>> you with an update on the GNSO Council's decision re the JAS report.<br>
>><br>
>> I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to<br>
>> the Board.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Best regards,<br>
>> Stephane van Gelder<br>
>> GNSO Council Chair<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Ching CHIAO<br>
> Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD.<br>
> Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group<br>
> Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG<br>
> =====================================<br>
> Email: <a href="mailto:chiao@registry.asia">chiao@registry.asia</a> Skype: chiao_rw<br>
> Mobile: +886-918211372 | +86-13520187032<br>
> <a href="http://www.registry.asia" target="_blank">www.registry.asia</a> | <a href="http://www.apngcamp.asia" target="_blank">www.apngcamp.asia</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/ching.chiao" target="_blank">www.facebook.com/ching.chiao</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>