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

carlos dionisio aguirre carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com
Mon May 23 15:05:32 UTC 2011

Tim: I would like if you could clarify the sentence  "We could likely argue for weeks about the inaccuracy of some of the NCSG comments in blogs, etc. about contracted parties" . I consider necessary determinate in a clear way the names of NCSG`s, and facts wich you mention, because you can not involve every NCSG members on this. And when you say "some" unfortunatelly  you are mentioning to all. thanks

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
former ALAC member by LACRALO
Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423

Subject: Re: : [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
To: HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org; owner-council at gnso.icann.org; 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
From: tim at godaddy.com
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:29:28 +0000

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.

From:  <HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org>
Sender:  owner-council at gnso.icann.org
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 10:17:33 -0400To: <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


I agree and support your sentiments.


Debra Y. Hughes l Senior

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


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

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.





Mary W S Wong

of Law

Graduate IP Programs

Franklin Pierce Center for IP


Two White Street

Concord, NH 03301


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


    <KnobenW at telekom.de>
    <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>,
    <william.drake at uzh.ch>
    <council at gnso.icann.org>
    9:10 AM
    AW: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
  Thanks both, Bill and Stéphane. I think this is acceptable.

  Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder at indom.com] 

  Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2011

  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.
  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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110523/5055e490/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list