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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stephane, go back and reread the notice they sent. It specifically
mentions the final report. So we will certainly have a decision to make.
I don't see any problem with Chuck's motion whether it includes a set
date for the WG to deliver a final report or not. My point is that they
are delivering a final report as noted in their notice and so any next
steps are our decision to make including whether to continue or not. 


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
> From: Stephane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, September 30, 2010 5:18 pm
> To: "tim@xxxxxxxxxxx" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,     
>   "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx" <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>,       
> "cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,       
> "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 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 GelderDirecteur 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 
> 
> Sender:  owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:38 +0200
> To: 
> Cc: ; 
> 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,  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 
>    
>   
> 
>   
>     _____________________________________________
> From: Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:53 
>       PM
> To: Council 
>       GNSO
> Subject: Motion re. VI 
>       WG 
> 
>  > 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>