Adrian,
My understanding from what I have seen is that there are those
on the VI WG who support continuing the work for the benefit of future new gTLD
rounds. You raise an important question that I rephrase here: is it reasonable
to expect that progress will be made regardless of how much additional time is
given? I recommend that you raise your question in the Council meeting when we
cover this topic. I would be happy then to raise the question with the
co-chairs.
Chuck
From: Adrian Kinderis
[mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:08 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: VI Motion
Chuck,
How much more time does the VI group need/ want?
As I have questioned a number of times now, how much closer will
we get to consensus by continuing? Can you please ask Mikey for a response?
This entire debate could have been avoiding by just bringing it
to a close now and forwarding the final report.
Adrian Kinderis
From:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf
Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 7:30 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] VI Motion
In my role as a Council representative for the RySG, I submit
the following motion for consideration in the 26 August Council meeting.
Note that I am doing so with the knowledge that the RySG made a decision
earlier today to support the motion.
Chuck Gomes
Motion
to Forward the Revised Initial Report on the Vertical Integration PDP to the
ICANN Board.
Whereas, on
28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development process (PDP)
on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars;
Whereas
the VI Working Group has produced its Revised Initial Report and has presented
it to the GNSO Council on 18 August; and,
Whereas,
the GNSO Council recognizes that the Revised Initial Report does not include
any recommendations that have achieved a consensus within the VI Working Group,
and instead reflects the current state of the work of the VI Working Group;
Whereas,
the GNSO Council has reviewed the Revised Initial Report, and desires to
forward the Revised Initial Report to the ICANN Board;
NOW
THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED,
that the GNSO Council appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by
each member of the VI PDP working group in developing the Revised Initial
Report on an expedited basis;
RESOLVED
FURTHER, that the Council hereby agrees to forward the Revised Initial Report
to the ICANN Board as a snapshot of the current state of the ongoing
deliberations of the VI Working Group with the
understanding that the VI Working Group will continue to work through these issues
to attempt to produce consensus recommendations in a final report.
RESOLVED
FURTHER, that this resolution is not an endorsement or approval by the GNSO
Council of the contents of the Revised Initial Report at this
time;
RESOLVED
FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to make the appropriate
notifications to the ICANN Secretary and to the community.