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

Mon May 23 14:29:28 UTC 2011

If that is our duty we will have little time for anything else. We could likely argue for weeks about the inaccuracy of some of the NCSG comments in blogs, etc. about contracted parties. Fortunately, our charge is fairly simple, manage the policy process. Let's just stick to that,  please.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: <HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org>
Sender: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 10:17:33 
To: <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>; <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>; <KnobenW at telekom.de>; <william.drake at uzh.ch>
Cc: <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: RE: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report

Mary,

I agree and support your sentiments.

Debbie

Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel 
American Red Cross 

Office of the General Counsel  
2025 E Street, NW 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
Phone: (202) 303-5356 
Fax: (202) 303-0143 
HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org <mailto:HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org>  

________________________________

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:04 AM
To: stephane.vangelder at indom.com; KnobenW at telekom.de; william.drake at uzh.ch
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re:: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report

As I'd indicated on the Council call, I believe it's our duty to correct factual misrepresentations that we know have taken place by/within the GNSO community. As such, I support sending the letter as Stephane now has it (i.e. including Bill's language).

I note also that neither this version nor my earlier attempts to achieve a similar result are "NCSG positions" as such, although I believe a number of other NCSG Councilors share my view.

As Jeff points out, we are not in a position to alter what ALAC/At Large did as part of their process. We are, however, obliged not to permit continued misperceptions about what happened to circulate amongst our community.

Cheers

Mary

Mary W S Wong

Professor of Law

Chair, Graduate IP Programs

Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

>>> 

From: 

<KnobenW at telekom.de>

To:

<stephane.vangelder at indom.com>, <william.drake at uzh.ch>

CC:

<council at gnso.icann.org>

Date: 

5/23/2011 9:10 AM

Subject: 

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

Thanks both, Bill and Stéphane. I think this is acceptable.

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich 

________________________________

	Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder at indom.com] 
	Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011 14:27
	An: William Drake
	Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council at gnso.icann.org
	Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report

	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.

	Thanks,

	Stéphane

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

	Hi Wolf-Ulrich

	On May 23, 2011, at 2:03 PM, <KnobenW at telekom.de> <KnobenW at telekom.de> 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 http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110512_icann_tiptoes_through_political_minefield_new_tlds/ 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: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110523/e0a9cc42/attachment.html>