AW: [council] Re-submission of the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting

Wed Sep 1 21:06:56 UTC 2010

I agree with Caroline, who has phrased what I would have wanted to say beautifully.

If other Councillors can suggest tweaks and amendments that might better capture either the desired end result of the process or address existing concerns (including those expressed by Wolf and others on the last call), that would be very helpful.

Cheers
Mary

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

>>> 

From: "Caroline Greer" <cgreer at mtld.mobi>
To:<KnobenW at telekom.de>, <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>, <council at gnso.icann.org>
Date: 9/1/2010 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: AW: [council] Re-submission of the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting

I don't know that we achieve anything more by just sending the Executive Summary rather than the full report? And as regards additional commentary by the Council Wolf, I think your first two points are covered in the original motion and I am not sure that we can go so far as saying that we 'expect' consensus recommendations to be made? We would all like to see this happen of course and I am quite sure the WG will strive to achieve that but reference in the original motion to an 'attempt' to work through the issues might perhaps be better wording and a more accurate reflection of what is going on?

I know that a motion such as this is not strictly necessary process-wise but perhaps it does no harm for the Council to publicly acknowledge the good work that has been done to date by the WG since such a huge effort has gone behind it. And while several Board members are very up to date on all that is going on with the VI WG in particular, the same might not be said of all.

Thanks

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

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org <owner-council at gnso.icann.org>
To: Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>; council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
Sent: Wed Sep 01 20:47:04 2010
Subject: AW: [council] Re-submission of the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting

This is a valuable hint. I'd like to come back to my suggestion just to send the Executive Summary of the report together with some "comments" made in the draft motion, such as
- 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
- no endorsement or approval by the GNSO Council of the contents of the Revised Initial Report at this time
- the Council still expects consensus recommendations in a final report

Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

________________________________

        Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bruce Tonkin
        Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. September 2010 01:35
        An: council at gnso.icann.org
        Betreff: RE: [council] Re-submission of the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting

        Note that several Board members have been observing the working group activities, and are aware of the initial report.   There is no "requirement" to formally transmit the report, as the report is a public document, and available to both the Board and the staff.

        The value in a motion such as that below, is an opportunity for the Council to give some context/commentary on top of the initial report as the body managing the policy development processes.

        Regards,

        Bruce Tonkin

        From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Caroline Greer
        Sent: Wednesday, 1 September 2010 2:14 AM
        To: council at gnso.icann.org
        Subject: [council] Re-submission of the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting

        Dear Council Members,

        In advance of our next Council meeting on 8th September and in order to meet the submission deadline of today, I would like to re-submit the Motion to Forward the Revised Initial Report on the Vertical Integration PDP to the ICANN Board. That motion is set out below.

        Many thanks,

        Kind regards,

        Caroline.

        **************************************************************

        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.

As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100901/29bb7d65/attachment.html>