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
> Date: Thu, September 30, 2010 5:18 pm
> To: "tim@godaddy.com"
> Cc: "owner-council@gnso.icann.org" ,
> "KnobenW@telekom.de" ,
> "cgomes@verisign.com" ,
> "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
>
>
>
>
>