<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
- To: "Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei@xxxxxxxx>, "Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:08:07 -0400
- In-reply-to: <015101cb6168$cbc2b7a0$634826e0$@ru>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B402421D30@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local> <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070370576A@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <015101cb6168$cbc2b7a0$634826e0$@ru>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: ActhNrc0fsWqsvKmQIKr8kt+l2JLxQADGJZgAAbJZ7kAAD6rgAACGW6AAABQz7A=
- Thread-topic: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
I would be happy to work with the WG co-chairs and any interested Councilors to
arrange a meeting like this. In an exchange with Mikey O’Connor, he suggested
the possibility of having a WG representative associated with each of the
proposals present a coupled slides summarizing their proposal and then giving
Councilors a chance to ask questions.
Chuck
From: Andrei Kolesnikov [mailto:andrei@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 9:01 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Caroline Greer'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
Chuck, separate meeting is OK and in general its good idea not to mix it with
general council agenda. There should be meeting about content, not about
process.
--andrei
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 3:55 PM
To: Caroline Greer; andrei@xxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
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>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|