Well said, Caroline. I agree we should send the whole report, acknowledge all the work and that we hope it continues to reach as much consensus as possible, but not suggest that we expect overall consensus from this WG. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Caroline Greer Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 1:31 PM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: AW: [council] Re-submission of the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting I don't know that we achieve anything more by just sending the Executive Summary rather than the full report? And as regards additional commentary by the Council Wolf, I think your first two points are covered in the original motion and I am not sure that we can go so far as saying that we 'expect' consensus recommendations to be made? We would all like to see this happen of course and I am quite sure the WG will strive to achieve that but reference in the original motion to an 'attempt' to work through the issues might perhaps be better wording and a more accurate reflection of what is going on? I know that a motion such as this is not strictly necessary process-wise but perhaps it does no harm for the Council to publicly acknowledge the good work that has been done to date by the WG since such a huge effort has gone behind it. And while several Board members are very up to date on all that is going on with the VI WG in particular, the same might not be said of all. Thanks ---------------- Caroline Greer Director of Policy dotMobi ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> To: Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Wed Sep 01 20:47:04 2010 Subject: AW: [council] Re-submission of the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting This is a valuable hint. I'd like to come back to my suggestion just to send the Executive Summary of the report together with some "comments" made in the draft motion, such as - 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 - no endorsement or approval by the GNSO Council of the contents of the Revised Initial Report at this time - the Council still expects consensus recommendations in a final report Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bruce Tonkin Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. September 2010 01:35 An: council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Re-submission of the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting Note that several Board members have been observing the working group activities, and are aware of the initial report. There is no "requirement" to formally transmit the report, as the report is a public document, and available to both the Board and the staff. The value in a motion such as that below, is an opportunity for the Council to give some context/commentary on top of the initial report as the body managing the policy development processes. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Caroline Greer Sent: Wednesday, 1 September 2010 2:14 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Re-submission of the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting Dear Council Members, In advance of our next Council meeting on 8th September and in order to meet the submission deadline of today, I would like to re-submit the Motion to Forward the Revised Initial Report on the Vertical Integration PDP to the ICANN Board. That motion is set out below. Many thanks, Kind regards, Caroline. ************************************************************** 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.