<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: AW: [council] Re-submission of the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting
- To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: AW: [council] Re-submission of the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting
- From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:10:42 -0700
- In-reply-to: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B402421C69@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Organization: Rodenbaugh Law
- References: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B402421C69@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
- Reply-to: <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: ActJJ42WIEYmrWUtQoi/UJbpHdaIiQAPTo8wACoc00AAAdkhfgACcazA
Well said, Caroline. I agree we should send the whole report, acknowledge all
the work and that we hope it continues to reach as much consensus as possible,
but not suggest that we expect overall consensus from this WG.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087
<http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Caroline Greer
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 1:31 PM
To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|