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

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

Let me be clear: I don't want to drag this on anymore than anyone else.

My question is: can the Council take it upon himself to call a WG's report 
final and consider its work done, even though that's not what the WG itself has 
reported to us?

I'm all for executive decisions, as long as they are made within the process 
that's been set for the body making them.

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur général / General manager

INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain names

Sent from my iPad

Le 1 oct. 2010 à 03:04, Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 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 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>
> 
>