AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report

Stéphane Van Gelder stephane.vangelder at
Mon May 23 12:26:50 UTC 2011

In the interest of clarity, I believe this is the excerpt from the blog post that Bill is referring to:

Support for Needy Applicants
ICANN is awaiting guidance from the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group who submitted their report directly to the Board over this past weekend. It's not clear why the GNSO was circumvented from the process, or how that will be addressed by the Board. While the ICANN Community all seem to agree there needs to be a mechanism for providing support to needy applicants, a workable solution needs to be found. I've not read the full report yet, but am hopeful.

And in the interest of consensus and moving ahead with this, Jeff or anyone else, is it really such a big problem to add Bill's sentence and send the message as suggested in my latest draft?

If we are worried about the fact that the Board could get the wrong idea about the report and not understand that it hasn't been approved yet, which is the rationale behind us working on this message in the first place, then it does not seem totally out of place to also address another misunderstanding that some worry might exist, does it?

Even if we don't all think the misunderstanding exists. Let's not forget that some of us didn't think that the first misunderstanding (about the Board not getting the fact that the report hasn't been approved) existed and yet, they still agreed to send the message.

So my suggestion is that the message as it currently stands incorporates all these varied POVs and allows us to move forwards.



Le 23 mai 2011 à 14:17, William Drake a écrit :

> Hi Wolf-Ulrich
> On May 23, 2011, at 2:03 PM, <KnobenW at> <KnobenW at> wrote:
>> could you please provide me with the "false information circulated"? Sorry, I forget too many things.
> I believe we discussed previously the fact that there were people running around saying that JAS had directly submitted its report to the Board in some sort of dastardly plot to circumvent the GNSO Council.  These rumblings were then put into words on a widely read blog which prompted Alan and other JAS members to issue corrections.  I don't know whether those corrections have been widely read and internalized or if there are still people out there laboring under misunderstandings.  But I would think the Council would have a self-interest in stating for the record that the process was followed and it was not dissed.
> Best,
> Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the council mailing list