[council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the good feedback Adrian and please see my responses below.

 

Chuck

 

From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 6:07 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: Motion re. VI WG 

 

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". 

[Gomes, Chuck] The intent was not to be negative but simply factual, but
I personally would rather it not come across as negative so I like your
suggestion. I don't believe it has been seconded yet so I will go ahead
and change it.

 

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

[Gomes, Chuck] I think this is a decision for the WG, not the Council.
Also, I know that the WG is trying to incorporate the public comments,
which seems like a reasonable step to take.

 

 

Does this help?

 

Adrian Kinderis

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
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