Re: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

[tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Right, I was speaking from that perspective. Once we have the final report it 
is Council's responsibility to decide where to go from there (within parameters 
of course). 

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:09:32 
To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

Tim,

The Working Group still has some work to do prior to submitting the Final 
Report-specifically, review of the comments submitted during the public comment 
period and updating the Final Report as appropriate.  This is an important step 
in the PDP process, and important for accountability purposes.    As a result, 
it may be premature to end the PDP now, prior to receiving the Final Report.

Also, please note that the charter for the VI-WG was quite broad-  it was 
intended to apply to both existing gTLDs and New gTLDs.    As a result,  there 
will be need for  Council action in either revising the charter or ending the 
PDP,  once the Final Report is submitted.

Best Regards,

Margie
_________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
_________

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 11:36 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

I think we (the Council) have enough to go on to make a decision about it. The 
very fact that they are submitting a "final" report tells us that we either 
need to reconstitute this PDP under a new charter or end it all together. This 
is our call at this point, not the WGs.

Tim
________________________________
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:38 +0200
To: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

I don't agree with your change Wolf unless it is confirmed by the WG chairs.

My understanding is the same as Chucks: they are currently in discussion with 
the group on next steps and nothing has been decided yet.

Stéphane
Le 30 sept. 2010 à 15:19, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>> a 
écrit :


I've inserted an amendment in the "Whereas..." which reflects the co-chairs' 
response - as mentioned in my E-Mail earlier today and would be glad you accept 
this as friendly.

Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

________________________________
Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. September 2010 14:37
An: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO
Betreff: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

I  am accepting one of Adrian's suggested amendments to this motion as friendly 
and change it as highlighted in the attached file.  Other suggested amendments 
are welcome.  Note also that a second is needed.

Chuck <<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10.doc>>


_____________________________________________
From: Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:53 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Motion re. VI WG


 << File: 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
<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10 -WUK amend.doc>