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

["Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei@xxxxxxxx>]

May I ask a question. While there is no consensus within VI WG, instead of 
discussing administrative / procedural issues on how to report / respond to the 
Board, why don’t we try to discuss main issues of WG disagreements one more 
time?

It will be very convenient to have a short summary presentation of WG chair. To 
be honest, scrolling 178 pages I’ve got an expression that this huge piece of 
professional work, votes on variants, reference materials… all this just to get 
around some very basic facts of conflicting interests.  Should we try to get 
right diagnosis at least? 

 

Thank you!

 

--andrei

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:04 AM
To: Adrian Kinderis
Cc: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; 
cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

 

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>