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

Fri Oct 1 11:46:12 UTC 2010

I quite like this idea Andrei and I think that this is such a big issue for the GNSO that we should ensure that we understand where the conflicts lie and where we go from here. Not that any of us is incapable of reading and understanding the report but it would be good to get a quick summary report and diagnosis (to use your word Andrei) from the Chairs. I think it would be useful to hear from them whether more time would be worthwhile or whether we really are just at the end of the road (my own sense is the latter by the way). 

Would this be of interest to others and would we have time on the agenda Chuck? 

Thanks. 

----------------
Caroline Greer
Director of Policy 
dotMobi 

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org <owner-council at gnso.icann.org>
To: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
Sent: Fri Oct 01 11:20:42 2010
Subject: RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

May I ask a question. While there is no consensus within VI WG, instead of discussing administrative / procedural issues on how to report / respond to the Board, why don’t we try to discuss main issues of WG disagreements one more time?

It will be very convenient to have a short summary presentation of WG chair. To be honest, scrolling 178 pages I’ve got an expression that this huge piece of professional work, votes on variants, reference materials… all this just to get around some very basic facts of conflicting interests.  Should we try to get right diagnosis at least? 

Thank you!

--andrei

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:04 AM
To: Adrian Kinderis
Cc: tim at godaddy.com; owner-council at gnso.icann.org; KnobenW at telekom.de; cgomes at verisign.com; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

Let me be clear: I don't want to drag this on anymore than anyone else.

My question is: can the Council take it upon himself to call a WG's report final and consider its work done, even though that's not what the WG itself has reported to us?

I'm all for executive decisions, as long as they are made within the process that's been set for the body making them.

Stéphane Van Gelder

Directeur général / General manager

INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain names

Sent from my iPad

Le 1 oct. 2010 à 03:04, Adrian Kinderis <adrian at ausregistry.com.au> a écrit :

	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 gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder
	Sent: Friday, 1 October 2010 8:19 AM
	To: tim at godaddy.com
	Cc: owner-council at gnso.icann.org; KnobenW at telekom.de; cgomes at verisign.com; council at gnso.icann.org
	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

	INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain names

	Sent from my iPad

	Le 30 sept. 2010 à 19:35, tim at godaddy.com 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.

		Tim

________________________________

		From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com> 

		Sender: owner-council at gnso.icann.org 

		Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:38 +0200

		To: <KnobenW at telekom.de>

		Cc: <cgomes at verisign.com>; <council at gnso.icann.org>

		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.

		Stéphane

		Le 30 sept. 2010 à 15:19, <KnobenW at telekom.de> 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 
		Wolf-Ulrich

			________________________________

						Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] 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.

			Chuck

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20101001/bf8e6236/attachment.html>