AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

Adrian Kinderis adrian at
Fri Oct 1 01:04:44 UTC 2010

I believe it was “hasn’t” and “won’t” reach consensus, which is the key part here Stephane.

Let’s wind it up gang.

Adrian Kinderis

From: owner-council at [mailto:owner-council at] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder
Sent: Friday, 1 October 2010 8:19 AM
To: tim at
Cc: owner-council at; KnobenW at; cgomes at; council at
Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

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.

The only formal communication we have from them is that they haven't reached consensus.

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur général / General manager<> Noms de domaine / Domain names

Sent from my iPad

Le 30 sept. 2010 à 19:35, tim at<mailto:tim at> a écrit :
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.

From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at<mailto:stephane.vangelder at>>
Sender: owner-council at<mailto:owner-council at>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:38 +0200
To: <KnobenW at<mailto:KnobenW at>>
Cc: <cgomes at<mailto:cgomes at>>; <council at<mailto:council at>>
Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

I don't agree with your change Wolf unless it is confirmed by the WG chairs.

My understanding is the same as Chucks: they are currently in discussion with the group on next steps and nothing has been decided yet.

Le 30 sept. 2010 à 15:19, <KnobenW at<mailto:KnobenW at>> a écrit :

I've inserted an amendment in the "Whereas..." which reflects the co-chairs' response - as mentioned in my E-Mail earlier today and would be glad you accept this as friendly.

Best regards

Von: owner-council at<mailto:owner-council at> [mailto:owner-council at] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. September 2010 14:37
An: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO
Betreff: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

I  am accepting one of Adrian’s suggested amendments to this motion as friendly and change it as highlighted in the attached file.  Other suggested amendments are welcome.  Note also that a second is needed.

Chuck <<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10.doc>>

From: Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:53 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Motion re. VI WG

 << File: Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10.doc >>

In response to the Board retreat resolution regarding VI and in order to meet the 8-day advance requirement for motions, I am submitting this motion and would appreciate a second.  Please forward this to your SGs and constituencies to determine support for the motion on 7 October.

I am not opposed to other ways of accomplishing this, but thought that a motion is a clear way to kick it off.

<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10 -WUK amend.doc>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the council mailing list