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

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

I did read it. It's Wolf's amendment that I misread. He did include the 
"intends to" which I read as "will".

Thanks for pointing that out.

I agree then that Wolf's amendment poses no problem as written.

Stéphane

Le 1 oct. 2010 à 05:04, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

> 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>