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

["Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxx.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@xxxxxxxxx>
To:<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>, <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Im Auftrag von Bruce Tonkin
        Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. September 2010 01:35
        An: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Caroline Greer
        Sent: Wednesday, 1 September 2010 2:14 AM
        To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        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@xxxxxxxxxxx. For more information on the 
University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu