October 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: Replacement for Willie Currie on the ATRT
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 2, 2010

Oct. 2, 2010

Please note that I made the same mistake Avri did. I should have said ". . please communicate your objection not later than Wednesday, 6 October, otherwise I will assume that the GNSO endorses Carlos (not Willie)." Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 10:02 AM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Cc: Avri Doria > Subject: FW: Replacement for Willie Currie on the ATRT > Importance: High > > Please note the following email string regarding the AoC A&T RT. As > you are aware, the GNSO endorsed Willie Currie for this RT as selected > by the NCSG. Unfortunately, Willie had to withdraw from the RT because > he accepted a government position. As you can see below, the NCSG has > requested that " Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza be installed into the > ATRT as a replacement for Willie" and Peter Dengate Thrush requests > that the GNSO endorse Carlos. > > To facilitate this happening as soon as possible, I would like to ask > if any Councilors object to endorsing Carlos as Willie's replacement. > If so, please communicate your objection not later than Wednesday, 6 > October, otherwise I will assume that the GNSO endorses Willie. As > always, I encourage each of you to consult with your respective > organizations as appropriate. > > Thanks for your prompt consideration of this. > > Chuck > > PS - Please note a correction from Avri. The following sentence should > say Carlos and not Willie: " Willie was a GNSO Council member for the > NCUC in the past." > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Dengate Thrush [mailto:peter.dengatethrush@icann.org] > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:31 PM > To: Avri Doria > Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca > Subject: Re: Replacement for Willie Currie on the ATRT > > Dear Avri > The formalities appear to be that Heather and I need to consider this > nomination and if appropriate make the appointment. > The Icann site is down, precluding my checking the AoC terms, but a > precursor (from memory) is that a nominee need to be endorsed by the SO > forwarding them. > > Assuming that can be processed, I see no reason why I wouldn't appoint > Carlos as soon as that is confirned. > > regards > > Peter Dengate Thrush > Chairman of the Board of Directors, > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > +64 4 4998959 (DDI) > +64 21499888 (mobile) > +64 4 4710672 (fax) > > > > On Oct 2, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > Dear all, > > > > The NCSG has discussed several candidates and had decided to request > that Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, be installed into the ATRT as a > replacement for Willie Currie. Carlos has communicated with Willie and > understands the requirements of the task he is signing up for. As I > understand it, they have further conversations planned. > > > > Willie was a GNSO Council member for the NCUC in the past. He is > currently a Professor of Business Law in Brazil. Further information of > his activities can be found at the following website: > > > > http://direitorio.fgv.br/pessoal/carlos-affonso-pereira-de-souza > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chron > oformname=2010PanelistBioView&wspid=322 > > > > I ask that whatever process is necessary for this appointment to be > approved be done in time for Carlos to attend the upcoming ATRT face to > face meeting if it is at all possible. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Avri Doria > > Chair, Executive Committee NCSG

1 0

FW: Replacement for Willie Currie on the ATRT
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 2, 2010

Oct. 2, 2010

Please note the following email string regarding the AoC A&T RT. As you are aware, the GNSO endorsed Willie Currie for this RT as selected by the NCSG. Unfortunately, Willie had to withdraw from the RT because he accepted a government position. As you can see below, the NCSG has requested that " Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza be installed into the ATRT as a replacement for Willie" and Peter Dengate Thrush requests that the GNSO endorse Carlos. To facilitate this happening as soon as possible, I would like to ask if any Councilors object to endorsing Carlos as Willie's replacement. If so, please communicate your objection not later than Wednesday, 6 October, otherwise I will assume that the GNSO endorses Willie. As always, I encourage each of you to consult with your respective organizations as appropriate. Thanks for your prompt consideration of this. Chuck PS - Please note a correction from Avri. The following sentence should say Carlos and not Willie: " Willie was a GNSO Council member for the NCUC in the past." -----Original Message----- From: Peter Dengate Thrush [mailto:peter.dengatethrush@icann.org] Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:31 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca Subject: Re: Replacement for Willie Currie on the ATRT Dear Avri The formalities appear to be that Heather and I need to consider this nomination and if appropriate make the appointment. The Icann site is down, precluding my checking the AoC terms, but a precursor (from memory) is that a nominee need to be endorsed by the SO forwarding them. Assuming that can be processed, I see no reason why I wouldn't appoint Carlos as soon as that is confirned. regards Peter Dengate Thrush Chairman of the Board of Directors, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers +64 4 4998959 (DDI) +64 21499888 (mobile) +64 4 4710672 (fax) On Oct 2, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Dear all, > > The NCSG has discussed several candidates and had decided to request that Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, be installed into the ATRT as a replacement for Willie Currie. Carlos has communicated with Willie and understands the requirements of the task he is signing up for. As I understand it, they have further conversations planned. > > Willie was a GNSO Council member for the NCUC in the past. He is currently a Professor of Business Law in Brazil. Further information of his activities can be found at the following website: > > http://direitorio.fgv.br/pessoal/carlos-affonso-pereira-de-souza > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chrono formname=2010PanelistBioView&wspid=322 > > I ask that whatever process is necessary for this appointment to be approved be done in time for Carlos to attend the upcoming ATRT face to face meeting if it is at all possible. > > Thank you, > > Avri Doria > Chair, Executive Committee NCSG

1 0

FW: ATRT and the NCSG Representative
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 2, 2010

Oct. 2, 2010

In case anyone is not aware, Willie Currie, the AoC A&T RT member endorsed by the GNSO via the NCSG, has to leave the A&T RT as explained below. I will shortly forward another string of emails regarding a possible replacement for the NCSG. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 8:23 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: William Drake Subject: ATRT and the NCSG Representative Hi, Don't know if you know but Willie Currie has to leave the ATRT because he is joining his government in the regulatory agency. So the NCSG would like to replace him. I have spoken to Brian and he is willing as long as the person knows that they cannot reopen issues and that they are expected to work hard (Willie was a real contributor). I also spoke to Heather and she is willing if we present a name under the conditions that Brian is willing to accept. Though we both agreed that the process needs to work through you and the council. I have not spoken to Peter. The NCSG wants to replace Willie because we do not wish to lose the good he did. We are currently trying to figure out who we would put forward. Please let me know how you would like to handle this. thanks a.

1 0

RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 1, 2010

Oct. 1, 2010

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(a)verisign.com> > Date: Fri, October 01, 2010 8:08 am > To: "Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei(a)cctld.ru>, "Caroline Greer" > <cgreer(a)mtld.mobi>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > 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.Â In an exchange with Mikey Oâ��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@cctld.ru] > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 9:01 AM > To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Caroline Greer'; council(a)gnso.icann.org > 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@verisign.com] > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 3:55 PM > To: Caroline Greer; andrei(a)cctld.ru; council(a)gnso.icann.org > 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(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf > Of Caroline Greer > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 7:46 AM > To: andrei(a)cctld.ru; council(a)gnso.icann.org > 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(a)gnso.icann.org > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > 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 donâ��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 Iâ��ve got an expression that this huge piece of > professional work, votes on variants, reference materialsâ�¦ 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(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:04 AM > To: Adrian Kinderis > Cc: tim(a)godaddy.com; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; KnobenW(a)telekom.de; > cgomes(a)verisign.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org > 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. > > StÃ©phane Van Gelder > > Directeur gÃ©nÃ©ral / General manager > > > > INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain names > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > Le 1 oct. 2010 Ã 03:04, Adrian Kinderis a > Ã©crit : > > I believe it was â��hasnâ��tâ�� and > â��wonâ��tâ�� reach consensus, which is the key part here Stephane. > > > > Letâ��s wind it up gang. > > > > Adrian Kinderis > > > > > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder > Sent: Friday, 1 October 2010 8:19 AM > To: tim(a)godaddy.com > Cc: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; > KnobenW(a)telekom.de; cgomes(a)verisign.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org > 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. > > > StÃ©phane Van Gelder > > Directeur gÃ©nÃ©ral / General manager > > > > INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain > names > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > Le 30 sept. 2010 Ã 19:35, > tim(a)godaddy.com a Ã©crit : > > > 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: StÃ©phane Van Gelder > > > > Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > > 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. > > > > > > StÃ©phane > > > Le 30 sept. 2010 Ã 15:19, > a Ã©crit : > > > > > > > > > > > > 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(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > 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 Adrianâ��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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 1, 2010

Oct. 1, 2010

I agree as long as it is an excercise to help us With our decision making and not any attempt for Council to try and do what the WG could not. But I think we should wait for the final report and review that first. It shouldn't take long (to produce or to review) because it will be substantially the same as the interim report. Then we can decide if such a meeting/report would be useful. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Fri, October 01, 2010 6:55 am > To: "Caroline Greer" <cgreer(a)mtld.mobi>, <andrei(a)cctld.ru>, > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, as is usually the case, our agenda is stretched > to the max.Â 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(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf > Of Caroline Greer > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 7:46 AM > To: andrei(a)cctld.ru; council(a)gnso.icann.org > 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(a)gnso.icann.org > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > 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 donâ��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 Iâ��ve got an expression that this huge piece of > professional work, votes on variants, reference materialsâ�¦ 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(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:04 AM > To: Adrian Kinderis > Cc: tim(a)godaddy.com; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; KnobenW(a)telekom.de; > cgomes(a)verisign.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org > 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. > > StÃ©phane Van Gelder > > Directeur gÃ©nÃ©ral / General manager > > > > INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain names > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > Le 1 oct. 2010 Ã 03:04, Adrian Kinderis a > Ã©crit : > > I believe it was â��hasnâ��tâ�� and > â��wonâ��tâ�� reach consensus, which is the key part here Stephane. > > > > Letâ��s wind it up gang. > > > > Adrian Kinderis > > > > > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder > Sent: Friday, 1 October 2010 8:19 AM > To: tim(a)godaddy.com > Cc: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; > KnobenW(a)telekom.de; cgomes(a)verisign.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org > 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. > > > StÃ©phane Van Gelder > > Directeur gÃ©nÃ©ral / General manager > > > > INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain > names > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > Le 30 sept. 2010 Ã 19:35, > tim(a)godaddy.com a Ã©crit : > > > 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: StÃ©phane Van Gelder > > > Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > > 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. > > > > > > StÃ©phane > > > Le 30 sept. 2010 Ã 15:19, > a Ã©crit : > > > > > > > > > > > > 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(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > 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 Adrianâ��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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
by Caroline Greer Oct. 1, 2010

Oct. 1, 2010

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(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: council(a)gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org> 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(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:04 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: tim(a)godaddy.com; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; KnobenW(a)telekom.de; cgomes(a)verisign.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org 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(a)ausregistry.com.au> 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(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, 1 October 2010 8:19 AM To: tim(a)godaddy.com Cc: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; KnobenW(a)telekom.de; cgomes(a)verisign.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org 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(a)godaddy.com 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(a)indom.com> Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:38 +0200 To: <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> Cc: <cgomes(a)verisign.com>; <council(a)gnso.icann.org> 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(a)telekom.de> 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(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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>

3 3

RE: Motion re. VI WG
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 1, 2010

Oct. 1, 2010

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

7 11

RE: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 1, 2010

Oct. 1, 2010

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 <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date: Thu, September 30, 2010 5:18 pm > To: "tim(a)godaddy.com" <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: "owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org" <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>, > "KnobenW(a)telekom.de" <KnobenW(a)telekom.de>, > "cgomes(a)verisign.com" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, > "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > 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. > StÃ©phane Van GelderDirecteur gÃ©nÃ©ral / General manager > > INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain names > > Sent from my iPad > > Le 30 sept. 2010 Ã 19:35, tim(a)godaddy.com a Ã©crit : > > > > 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: StÃ©phane Van Gelder > > Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > 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. > > StÃ©phane > > Le 30 sept. 2010 Ã 15:19, a Ã©crit : > > > 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(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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 Adrianâ��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 > > > > >

3 2

FW: Notice To GNSO Council with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 1, 2010

Oct. 1, 2010

Please note the following communication from the co-chairs of the VI PDP WG. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:12 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Roberto Gaetano Subject: Notice To GNSO Council with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration To: GNSO Council From: Roberto Gaetano and Mikey O'Connor (VI working-group co-chairs) Subject: Notice with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration ____ In response to Section 2.11 (Vertical Integration) of the 25 September 2010 resolution by the ICANN Board, we would like to notify the GNSO Council that to date the Working Group has not reached a consensus view on vertical integration. We plan to incorporate public comments into the Interim Report and provide the Council with a Final Report in advance of the Council's 18 November meeting.

4 4