<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Motion re. VI WG
Good question Wolf. My understanding from my limited monitoring of the
VI PDP WG email list is that discussions are still ongoing as to whether
it will be called a final report as well as whether there will be
continued effort to reach consensus on any items. I would rather not
set expectations that may not be met without direction from the WG.
Also, it seems to me that 18 November could very well be after the
posting of the next version of the applicant guidebook because, if there
is a 30-day comment period leading up to the Cartagena Board meeting, it
probably would need to posted not later than 9 November. If my
estimates are correct, it would seem to be too late for any consensus
items to be considered for inclusion in the posted guidebook.
Regarding the latter point, I have communicated this issue to the WG
co-chairs.
Chuck
From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:05 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [council] Motion re. VI WG
Shouldn't we mention the co-chairs' intention to provide the final
report before 18 November - in case there is a chance to reach consensus
positions by that date?
Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________
Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. September 2010 19:53
An: Council GNSO
Betreff: [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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|