Sure Adrian. Chuck From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 5:45 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Subject: RE: VI Motion Should I be absent from the call can you please ensure you raise this on my behalf Chuck? Thanks. Adrian Kinderis From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:48 AM To: Adrian Kinderis; Council GNSO Subject: RE: VI Motion 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.