Stephane, go back and reread the notice they sent. It specifically<br>
mentions the final report. So we will certainly have a decision to make.<br>
I don't see any problem with Chuck's motion whether it includes a set<br>
date for the WG to deliver a final report or not. My point is that they<br>
are delivering a final report as noted in their notice and so any next<br>
steps are our decision to make including whether to continue or not. <br>
<br>
<br>
Tim<br>
<br>
> -------- Original Message --------<br>
> Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG<br>
> From: Stephane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com><br>
> Date: Thu, September 30, 2010 5:18 pm<br>
> To: "tim@godaddy.com" <tim@godaddy.com><br>
> Cc: "owner-council@gnso.icann.org" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>, <br>
> "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de>, <br>
> "cgomes@verisign.com" <cgomes@verisign.com>, <br>
> "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org><br>
> <br>
> I disagree. The discussion isn't on whether we end the WG or not. I was reacting to Wolf's proposed change indicating that the WG was to submit a final report by a set date, something which the WG has not confirmed to us.<br>
> <br>
> The only formal communication we have from them is that they haven't reached consensus.<br>
> Stéphane Van GelderDirecteur général / General manager<br>
> <br>
> INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain names<br>
> <br>
> Sent from my iPad<br>
> <br>
> Le 30 sept. 2010 à 19:35, tim@godaddy.com a écrit :<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I think we (the Council) have enough to go on to make a decision about it. The very fact that they are submitting a "final" report tells us that we either need to reconstitute this PDP under a new charter or end it all together. This is our call at this point, not the WGs.<br>
> <br>
> Tim<br>
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder <br>
> <br>
> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<br>
> <br>
> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:38 +0200<br>
> To: <br>
> Cc: ; <br>
> Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG<br>
> <br>
> I don't agree with your change Wolf unless it is confirmed by the WG chairs.<br>
> <br>
> My understanding is the same as Chucks: they are currently in discussion with the group on next steps and nothing has been decided yet.<br>
> <br>
> Stéphane<br>
> <br>
> Le 30 sept. 2010 à 15:19, a écrit :<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I've inserted an amendment in the "Whereas..." which <br>
> reflects the co-chairs' response - as mentioned in my E-Mail earlier today and <br>
> would be glad you accept this as friendly.<br>
> <br>
> Best regards <br>
> Wolf-Ulrich<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <br>
> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, <br>
> Chuck<br>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. September 2010 14:37<br>
> An: <br>
> Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO<br>
> Betreff: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I am accepting one of Adrian�s suggested amendments to this motion as friendly <br>
> and change it as highlighted in the attached file. Other suggested <br>
> amendments are welcome. Note also that a second is <br>
> needed.<br>
> Chuck <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _____________________________________________<br>
> From: Gomes, Chuck<br>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:53 <br>
> PM<br>
> To: Council <br>
> GNSO<br>
> Subject: Motion re. VI <br>
> WG <br>
> <br>
> > <br>
> In response to the Board <br>
> retreat resolution regarding VI and in order to meet the 8-day advance <br>
> requirement for motions, I am submitting this motion and would appreciate <br>
> a second. Please forward this to your SGs and constituencies to <br>
> determine support for the motion on 7 October.<br>
> I am not opposed to other <br>
> ways of accomplishing this, but thought that a motion is a clear way to <br>
> kick it off.<br>
> Chuck<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
<br>