<html>
<body>
Jeff, <br><br>
If "the ICANN staff that supports the ALAC submitted it directly to
the Board at the same time it was forwarded to the GNSO", it is
problematic. And I am sure that the ALAC would agree. <br><br>
What is the origin of this claim or the evidence of this
happening?<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 23/05/2011 08:03 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I really do not understand why
we would have the statement recommended by Bill. That has never been the
issue with the other Councilors on this list. Perhaps there
was a post or two on blogs elsewhere, but that was not the concern
expressed by Councilors and I do not see why we should be addressing that
point. <br>
<br>
The issue for me (and some other councilors on this list) has been that
the ICANN staff that supports the ALAC submitted it directly to the Board
at the same time it was forwarded to the GNSO, and the ALAC formally
forwarded to the board for its consideration prior to the GNSO having a
chance to review it (much less approve it). As we have seen, this
report is already being considered by the Board and the GAC giving the
appearance that the GNSO’s input into the matter is
irrelevant. So the whole concern expressed by
Councilors in January with the new charter about not communicating
directly with the Board with the GNSO Council’s input was completely
circumvented by the ALAC because that was not in their version of the
Charter. Granted we cannot control what is another SO’s charter,
but we can make sure in the future that we do not approve any CWGs where
that CWG has a provision that is inconsistent with ours.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Jeffrey J. Neuman <br>
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy</b><br>
Please note new address: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA
20166 <br>
<br><br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Stéphane Van
Gelder<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 23, 2011 7:43 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> William Drake<br>
<b>Cc:</b> GNSO Council<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG
report<br>
<br>
Thanks Bill.<br>
<br>
The message would then become:<br>
<br>
Dear Peter,<br>
<br>
We understand that ALAC has forwarded to the Board the Joint SO/AC New
gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report.
As the other chartering organization of the JAS WG, the GNSO Council
notes that it has not yet approved the Report. A motion to do this was
proposed at our May 19 teleconference and tabled until our next meeting,
on June 9.<br>
<br>
I will therefore look to get back to you after this meeting to provide
you with an update on the GNSO Council's decision re the JAS report.<br>
<br>
In light of false information that has been circulated on the matter, the
GNSO Council would also like to confirm that the JAS WG simultaneously
submitted its Report to ALAC and the GNSO for review.<br>
<br>
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the
Board.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Stephane van Gelder<br>
GNSO Council Chair<br>
<br>
<br>
If anyone disagrees with the content of the message as stated, please say
so by COB tonight so that I can send the message tomorrow as
planned.<br>
<br>
Stéphane<br>
<br>
Le 23 mai 2011 à 13:16, William Drake a écrit :<br><br>
<br>
Hi Stéphane<br><br>
On May 23, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:<br><br>
<br>
Discussions by them of a "way forward" on a report that hasn't
yet been approved by us may just be thinking ahead, or it may be that
they have not cottoned on to the fact that the report hasn't yet been
approved…<br><br>
I suspect they do understand what is plainly obvious but believe
consideration of a "way forward" is necessary
nonetheless. Which would be a sound conclusion, given the serious
need to broaden both international participation in gTLDs and political
support for ICANN. <br><br>
With regard to your letter, may I suggest a small and incontrovertibly
factual amendment that would be entirely in keeping with your purely
informational objective here? How's about adding the
following: "In light of false information that has been
circulated on the matter, the GNSO Council would also like to confirm
that the JAS WG simultaneously submitted its Report to ALAC and the GNSO
for review." This is should eliminate the NC opposition to a
letter (haven't asked, but believe so).<br><br>
Bill<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>