[council] RE: VI Motion

[Gomes, Chuck]

Adrian,

 

My understanding from what I have seen is that there are those on the VI
WG who support continuing the work for the benefit of future new gTLD
rounds.  You raise an important question that I rephrase here: is it
reasonable to expect that progress will be made regardless of how much
additional time is given?  I recommend that you raise your question in
the Council meeting when we cover this topic.  I would be happy then to
raise the question with the co-chairs.

 

Chuck

 

From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian at ausregistry.com.au] 
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:08 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: VI Motion

 

Chuck,

 

How much more time does the VI group need/ want?

 

As I have questioned a number of times now, how much closer will we get
to consensus by continuing? Can you please ask Mikey for a response?

 

This entire debate could have been avoiding by just bringing it to a
close now and forwarding the final report.

 

Adrian Kinderis

 

 

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 7:30 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] VI Motion

 

In my role as a Council representative for the RySG, I submit the
following motion for consideration in the 26 August Council meeting.
Note that I am doing so with the knowledge that the RySG made a decision
earlier today to support the motion.

 

Chuck Gomes

 

Motion to Forward the Revised Initial Report on the Vertical Integration
PDP to the ICANN Board.

 

Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy
development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between
registries and registrars;

 

Whereas the VI Working Group has produced its Revised Initial Report and
has presented it to the GNSO Council on 18 August; and,

 

Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes that the Revised Initial Report
does not include any recommendations that have achieved a consensus
within the VI Working Group, and instead reflects the current state of
the work of the VI Working Group;

 

Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Revised Initial Report, and
desires to forward the Revised Initial Report to the ICANN Board;

 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

 

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council appreciates the hard work and tremendous
effort shown by each member of the VI PDP working group in developing
the Revised Initial Report on an expedited basis;

 

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Council hereby agrees to forward the Revised
Initial Report to the ICANN Board as a snapshot of the current state of
the ongoing deliberations of the VI Working Group with the understanding
that the VI Working Group will continue to work through these issues to
attempt to produce consensus recommendations in a final report.

 

RESOLVED FURTHER, that this resolution is not an endorsement or approval
by the GNSO Council of the contents of the Revised Initial Report at
this time;     

 

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to make the
appropriate notifications to the ICANN Secretary and to the community.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100819/d7250a88/attachment.html>