AW: [council] Adrian's gameplan

KnobenW at KnobenW at
Sat Jun 18 08:57:34 UTC 2011

What would have been the alternative "working environment"? Just an ALAC-WG?
I think the GNSO's participation was helpful and necessary.

Mary, could you pls. Update us with your 1st version? 

Kind regards


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-council at [mailto:owner-council at] Im Auftrag von Rosemary Sinclair
Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Juni 2011 10:48
An: Adrian Kinderis; tim at; Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-council at; Mary.Wong at
Cc: 'GNSO Council List'
Betreff: 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 this case implementation proposals rather than policy proposals....

I'd support Mary's original version


From: owner-council at [owner-council at] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis [adrian at]
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 5:48 PM
To: tim at; Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-council at; Mary.Wong at
Cc: 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: RE: [council] Adrian's gameplan


Adrian Kinderis

From: owner-council at [mailto:owner-council at] On Behalf Of tim at
Sent: Saturday, 18 June 2011 3:48 PM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-council at; Mary.Wong at
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.

From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at>
Sender: owner-council at
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:09:47 +0200
To: <Mary.Wong at>
Cc: 'GNSO Council List'<council at>
Subject: Re: [council] Adrian's gameplan

Thanks Mary,

Would you be up for drafting a proposed statement, for the Council's consideration?


Le 18 juin 2011 à 09:01, <Mary.Wong at<mailto:Mary.Wong at>> 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
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
Email: mary.wong at<mailto:mary.wong at>
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:

"Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei at<mailto:andrei at>>


"'Adrian Kinderis'" <adrian at<mailto:adrian at>>, "'GNSO Council List'" <council at<mailto:council at>>


6/18/2011 1:13 AM


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".


From: owner-council at<mailto:owner-council at> [mailto:owner-council at] 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

More information about the council mailing list