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@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>
Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:38 +0200
To: <KnobenW@telekom.de>
Cc: <cgomes@verisign.com>; <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> 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] 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>