[council] Draft message to the Board

Neuman, Jeff Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us
Tue May 10 22:53:04 UTC 2011


This has already been the subject of discussion on the RySG list and we are very concerned about the state of affairs. We are set to discuss it tomorrow as part of our regular meeting.

I personally support the message to the Board.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman at neustar.biz



From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette at cov.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 06:46 PM
To: 'Olga Cavalli' <olgacavalli at gmail.com>; Adrian Kinderis <adrian at ausregistry.com.au>
Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>; council at gnso.icann.org GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: RE: [council] Draft message to the Board

I believe there's urgency because the Board may not understand that (a) the GNSO Council just got the report; and (b) hasn't reviewed it, let alone approved it.  If the Board acts on the report without knowing those (IMHO, very important) facts, they are acting on incomplete information.

If there's an issue getting consensus on this point (and I don't understand why there would be), I'm happy to ask IPC leadership to support my sending SVG's statement to the Board as a statement from the IPC, and other constituencies/SGs can follow suit - or not.

K

________________________________
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 6:30 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis
Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council at gnso.icann.org GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board

I think we should follow a procedure that contemplates all councillor´s opinions.
Still not see the point for rushing
regards
Olga


2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian at ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian at ausregistry.com.au>>
We have to rush because I assume the Board is reviewing the report having been sent it directly from the WG.

It is important that they understand the report has not been reviewed not approved by the Council.

These are facts. Why can’t they be stated?

Adrian Kinderis



From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:23 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis
Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org> GNSO

Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board

Hi,
Should we have a vote on this?
I do not understand why we have to rush, could some one clarify this to me?
Best
Olga

2011/5/10 Adrian Kinderis <adrian at ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian at ausregistry.com.au>>
Olga,

Maybe I can help, I believe SVG means that, of all the responses to the list so far, all have agreed with my statement and request to send a letter to the Board.

Adrian Kinderis

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:09 PM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder

Cc: council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org> GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Draft message to the Board

Hi Stéphane,
my apologies if I missed some emails, I was travelling.
Could you please clarify "unanimous support"?
Many thanks and regards
Olga
2011/5/10 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder at indom.com>>
Councillors,

In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board.

Thanks,

Stéphane




Dear Peter,

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 has not yet been approved by ALAC.

The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. 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.

As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it.

I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.

Best,

Stéphane Van Gelder
GNSO Council Chair



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110510/576b483a/attachment.html>


More information about the council mailing list