[council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

[Adrian Kinderis]

Thanks Chuck.

It sounds negative to me.

Why not put something that reflects that, "whilst many different issues were discussed and many different models reviewed, consensus among the stakeholders within the WG could not be reached".

I would also add something like; "the interim report previously provided will now me marked final and submitted as appropriate".

Does this help?

Adrian Kinderis


From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:53 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] Motion re. VI WG


<<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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100930/e5466914/attachment.html>