<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18939">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I agree to all steps suggested. I should feel much
more comfortable having really understood the problems. I support the idea to
either hold a separate meeting or spend more time on this topic at a regular
meeting.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>But a kind of "final" report is needed for this
purpose.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>With regards to the board expecting a
clear answer to its inquiry I would prefer the council in its answer should
not just repeat the WG's input but also explain what could be the next
"management" steps in order to decide whether to follow-up with the PDP or to
debrief.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>At least something should be mentioned about the
WG's goal to produce the final report before 18 Nov and the council's plans what
next.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Wolf-Ulrich</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=tim@godaddy.com href="mailto:tim@godaddy.com">Tim Ruiz</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=cgomes@verisign.com
href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=cgreer@mtld.mobi
href="mailto:cgreer@mtld.mobi">cgreer@mtld.mobi</A> ; <A title=andrei@cctld.ru
href="mailto:andrei@cctld.ru">andrei@cctld.ru</A> ; <A
title=council@gnso.icann.org
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, October 01, 2010 2:44
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re.
VI WG</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I agree as long as it is an excercise to help us With our
decision<BR>making and not any attempt for Council to try and do what the WG
could<BR>not. But I think we should wait for the final report and review
that<BR>first. It shouldn't take long (to produce or to review) because it
will<BR>be substantially the same as the interim report. Then we can decide
if<BR>such a meeting/report would be useful.<BR><BR><BR>Tim<BR><BR>>
-------- Original Message --------<BR>> Subject: RE: AW: [council] RE:
Motion re. VI WG<BR>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <CGOMES@VERISIGN.COM><BR>>
Date: Fri, October 01, 2010 6:55 am<BR>> To: "Caroline Greer"
<CGREER@MTLD.MOBI>, <ANDREI@CCTLD.RU>, <BR>>
<COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
Unfortunately, as is usually the case, our agenda is stretched<BR>> to the
max. We should also realize that doing such a task would likely
require<BR>> a meeting all its own, so maybe we should consider scheduling
a separate<BR>> meeting for it and invite the co-chairs.<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> Chuck<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> From:<BR>>
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf<BR>> Of Caroline Greer<BR>> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 7:46
AM<BR>> To: andrei@cctld.ru; council@gnso.icann.org<BR>> Subject: Re:
AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I quite like<BR>> this idea Andrei and I
think that this is such a big issue for the GNSO that we<BR>> should ensure
that we understand where the conflicts lie and where we go from<BR>> here.
Not that any of us is incapable of reading and understanding the report
but<BR>> it would be good to get a quick summary report and diagnosis (to
use your word<BR>> Andrei) from the Chairs. I think it would be useful to
hear from them whether<BR>> more time would be worthwhile or whether we
really are just at the end of the<BR>> road (my own sense is the latter by
the way).<BR>> <BR>> Would this be of interest to others and would we
have time on the agenda Chuck?<BR>> <BR>> Thanks.<BR>> <BR>>
----------------<BR>> Caroline Greer<BR>> Director of Policy<BR>>
dotMobi<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> From:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org <BR>> To: council@gnso.icann.org <BR>>
Sent: Fri Oct 01 11:20:42 2010<BR>> Subject: RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion
re. VI WG<BR>> <BR>> May I ask a question. While there is no consensus
within VI WG, instead of<BR>> discussing administrative / procedural issues
on how to report / respond to the<BR>> Board, why don�t we try to discuss
main issues of WG disagreements one more<BR>> time?<BR>> <BR>> It
will be very convenient to have a short summary presentation of WG chair.
To<BR>> be honest, scrolling 178 pages I�ve got an expression that this
huge piece of<BR>> professional work, votes on variants, reference
materials� all this just to get<BR>> around some very basic facts of
conflicting interests. Should we try to<BR>> get right diagnosis at
least?<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Thank you!<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> --andrei<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> From:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]<BR>> On
Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder<BR>> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:04
AM<BR>> To: Adrian Kinderis<BR>> Cc: tim@godaddy.com;
owner-council@gnso.icann.org; KnobenW@telekom.de;<BR>> cgomes@verisign.com;
council@gnso.icann.org<BR>> Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI
WG<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Let me be clear: I don't want to drag
this on anymore than anyone else.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> My
question is: can the Council take it upon himself to call a WG's
report<BR>> final and consider its work done, even though that's not what
the WG itself has<BR>> reported to us?<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
I'm all for executive decisions, as long as they are made within the
process<BR>> that's been set for the body making them.<BR>> <BR>>
Stéphane Van Gelder<BR>> <BR>> Directeur général / General
manager<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain
names<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Sent from my iPad<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> Le 1 oct. 2010 à 03:04, Adrian Kinderis a<BR>> écrit
:<BR>> <BR>> I believe it was
�hasn�t� and<BR>> �won�t� reach consensus, which is the key
part here Stephane.<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
Let�s wind it up gang.<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
Adrian Kinderis<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]<BR>> On Behalf Of Stephane Van
Gelder<BR>> Sent: Friday, 1
October 2010 8:19 AM<BR>> To:
tim@godaddy.com<BR>> Cc:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org;<BR>> KnobenW@telekom.de; cgomes@verisign.com;
council@gnso.icann.org<BR>>
Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE:<BR>> Motion re. VI WG<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
I disagree. The discussion isn't
on<BR>> whether we end the WG or not. I was reacting to Wolf's proposed
change<BR>> indicating that the WG was to submit a final report by a set
date, something<BR>> which the WG has not confirmed to us.<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
The only formal communication
we<BR>> have from them is that they haven't reached consensus.<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
Stéphane Van Gelder<BR>>
<BR>> Directeur général /
General manager<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
INDOM.com Noms de domaine /
Domain<BR>> names<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
Sent from my iPad<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
Le 30 sept. 2010 Ã
19:35,<BR>> tim@godaddy.com a écrit :<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
I think we (the Council) have
enough<BR>> to go on to make a decision about it. The very fact that they
are submitting a<BR>> "final" report tells us that we either need to
reconstitute this PDP<BR>> under a new charter or end it all together. This
is our call at this point, not<BR>> the WGs.<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
Tim<BR>> <BR>>
________________________________<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
Sender:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010
15:32:38<BR>> +0200<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
To: <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
Cc: ;<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
Subject: Re: AW: [council]
RE:<BR>> Motion re. VI WG<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
I don't agree with your change
Wolf<BR>> unless it is confirmed by the WG chairs.<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
My understanding is the same
as<BR>> Chucks: they are currently in discussion with the group on next
steps and<BR>> nothing has been decided yet.<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
Stéphane<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
Le 30 sept. 2010 Ã
15:19,<BR>> a écrit :<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
I've inserted an amendment in
the<BR>> "Whereas..." which reflects the co-chairs' response - as mentioned
in<BR>> my E-Mail earlier today and would be glad you accept this as
friendly.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
Best regards<BR>>
<BR>>
Wolf-Ulrich<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
________________________________<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>> Von:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]<BR>> Im
Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30.
September<BR>> 2010 14:37<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
An: Gomes, Chuck; Council
GNSO<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
Betreff: [council] RE: Motion re.
VI<BR>> WG<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
I am accepting one of
Adrian�s<BR>> suggested amendments to this motion as friendly and change
it as highlighted in<BR>> the attached file. Other suggested
amendments are welcome. Note<BR>> also that a second is
needed.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
Chuck <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
_____________________________________________<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
From: Gomes, Chuck<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29,
2010<BR>> 1:53 PM<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
To: Council GNSO<BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
Subject: Motion re. VI WG<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
><BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
In response to the Board
retreat<BR>> resolution regarding VI and in order to meet the 8-day advance
requirement for<BR>> motions, I am submitting this motion and would
appreciate a second. <BR>> Please forward this to your SGs and
constituencies to determine support for the<BR>> motion on 7
October.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
I am not opposed to other ways
of<BR>> accomplishing this, but thought that a motion is a clear way to
kick it off.<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>>
Chuck<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>