[council] Draft message to the Board
Stéphane Van Gelder
stephane.vangelder at indom.com
Wed May 11 16:04:58 UTC 2011
I am not sure the time argument is worth spending that much time on, but if it helps I can confirm that I got Rafik's message at 1:51 on May 8 (French time), which in UTC is the time Alan gives. The time given for Carlton's message is also correct.
I should add that in his message, Rafik also gave me a heads-up that he would be proposing a motion.
I responded to Rafik on the same day, a few hours later. I then forwarded ALAC's message to the Board to the Council list, and asked Glen to post the report on the Council website (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/).
Le 11 mai 2011 à 16:52, Alan Greenberg a écrit :
> Regarding timing of the report versions:
> A message pointing to the first official copy of the report from the WG on the Wiki went to the Chairs of the ALAC and GNSO sent by Rafik at 23:51 UTC on Saturday, May 7.
> A copy in PDF format went to the two Chairs, sent by Carlton at 02:01 UTC on Sun May 8 and was then forwarded to Council.
> Note that Rafik and Carlton are the Co-chairs of the WG.
> The ALAC report to the Board went to the Chair of the GNSO, sent by the Chair of the ALAC at 08:57 on Tuesday, May 10 and was then forwarded to Council (that presumes I read my time zones correctly. It was time-stamped 10:57 HAEC). This version corrected a number of typos and added a cover letter and summary.
> Some members of At-Large and the ALAC, including the Chair, had earlier versions of the report since they either participated in the WG or watched its progress. The same can be said of the GNSO and the GNSO Council.
> If I got any of the time-zone conversions wrong, please let me know.
> At 11/05/2011 05:36 AM, Stephane Van Gelder wrote:
>> [text omitted]
>> On your comments to the current draft, I understand the dates discrepancy you highlight. It does pose a problem however, as the date I had put in the draft was the one on which the JAS sent us the report. As you correctly point out, ALAC sent it on May 6, while we only got it on May 9. That in itself is a problem, as it begs the question as to why one chartering entity got the report before the other did. As Jeff stated, this looks a lot like the situation we've just had with the ccNSO and the JIG. So trying to learn from our mistakes here, I had not wanted to get into that with our Board statement, but if you think we should, we can...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council