AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
KnobenW at telekom.de
KnobenW at telekom.de
Mon May 23 12:03:22 UTC 2011
could you please provide me with the "false information circulated"? Sorry, I forget too many things.
Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder
Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 13:43
An: William Drake
Cc: GNSO Council
Betreff: Re: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
The message would then become:
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.
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.
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.
I would be grateful if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board.
Stephane van Gelder
GNSO Council Chair
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.
Le 23 mai 2011 à 13:16, William Drake a écrit :
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).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council