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

[Stephane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

I disagree. The discussion isn't on whether we end the WG or not. I was 
reacting to Wolf's proposed change indicating that the WG was to submit a final 
report by a set date, something which the WG has not confirmed to us.

The only formal communication we have from them is that they haven't reached 
consensus.

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur général / General manager

INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain names

Sent from my iPad

Le 30 sept. 2010 à 19:35, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx a écrit :

> 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> 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] 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>
>