Stephane, go back and reread the notice they sent. It specifically mentions the final report. So we will certainly have a decision to make. I don't see any problem with Chuck's motion whether it includes a set date for the WG to deliver a final report or not. My point is that they are delivering a final report as noted in their notice and so any next steps are our decision to make including whether to continue or not. Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG From: Stephane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Date: Thu, September 30, 2010 5:18 pm To: "tim@godaddy.com" <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: "owner-council@gnso.icann.org" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>, "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de>, "cgomes@verisign.com" <cgomes@verisign.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>
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 GelderDirecteur 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
Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:38 +0200 To: Cc: ; 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, 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
_____________________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:53 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Motion re. VI WG
> 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