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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Unfortunately, as is usually the case, our agenda is stretched to the max.  We 
should also realize that doing such a task would likely require a meeting all 
its own, so maybe we should consider scheduling a separate meeting for it and 
invite the co-chairs.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Caroline Greer
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 7:46 AM
To: andrei@xxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

 

I quite like this idea Andrei and I think that this is such a big issue for the 
GNSO that we should ensure that we understand where the conflicts lie and where 
we go from here. Not that any of us is incapable of reading and understanding 
the report but it would be good to get a quick summary report and diagnosis (to 
use your word Andrei) from the Chairs. I think it would be useful to hear from 
them whether more time would be worthwhile or whether we really are just at the 
end of the road (my own sense is the latter by the way).

Would this be of interest to others and would we have time on the agenda Chuck?

Thanks.

----------------
Caroline Greer
Director of Policy
dotMobi


----- Original Message -----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri Oct 01 11:20:42 2010
Subject: RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

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>