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

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I believe it was “hasn’t” and “won’t” reach consensus, which is the key part 
here Stephane.

Let’s wind it up gang.

Adrian Kinderis


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder
Sent: Friday, 1 October 2010 8:19 AM
To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

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<http://INDOM.com> Noms de domaine / Domain names

Sent from my iPad

Le 30 sept. 2010 à 19:35, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:38 +0200
To: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>; 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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>