[council] RE: VI Motion

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Should I be absent from the call can you please ensure you raise this on my 
behalf Chuck?

Thanks.

Adrian Kinderis


From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:48 AM
To: Adrian Kinderis; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: VI Motion

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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.