![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98ca48fb917f289f499a3db6d27b8b4f.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
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@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@godaddy.com Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org; KnobenW@telekom.de; cgomes@verisign.com; council@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<http://INDOM.com> Noms de domaine / Domain names Sent from my iPad Le 30 sept. 2010 à 19:35, tim@godaddy.com<mailto:tim@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@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:38 +0200 To: <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> Cc: <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>; <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@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@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@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@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@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>