[council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
william.drake at uzh.ch
Mon May 23 11:16:36 UTC 2011
On May 23, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 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…
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.
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).
More information about the council