<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
- To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
- From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:08:27 +1000
- Accept-language: en-US, en-AU
- Acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU
- Cc: "stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx" <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>, "cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <20101001030403.24739.qmail@mm03.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <20101001030403.24739.qmail@mm03.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: ActhFfcvtT81EbatRz+NLrlxnxf2bw==
- Thread-topic: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
I agree with tim's view.
Sent from my iPhone
On 01/10/2010, at 13:05, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
> > Date: Thu, September 30, 2010 5:18 pm
> > To: "tim@xxxxxxxxxxx"
> > Cc: "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" ,
> > "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx" ,
> > "cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx" ,
> > "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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|