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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Not sure I see the point in that. We are managers of the process so our
interest should be more in any issues that prevented consensus or other
difficulties (level of participation, representativeness, etc.) that may
(or may not) be mitigated in the future to help us determine if it makes
sense to continue, reconstitute, modify the TOR, etc. 

Spending time on actual proposals will just get us sidetracked into
discussions we should not be having. 


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, October 01, 2010 8:08 am
> To: "Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei@xxxxxxxx>, "Caroline Greer"
> <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>,        <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Re: 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 
> To: 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 Ã  03:04, Adrian Kinderis  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 Ã  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 Ã  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
> 
>        
>         
> 
>        
>         
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>