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 Ã 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>