<<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10.doc>> 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
Shouldn't we mention the co-chairs' intention to provide the final report before 18 November - in case there is a chance to reach consensus positions by that date? Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. September 2010 19:53 An: Council GNSO Betreff: [council] Motion re. VI WG <<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10.doc>> 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
Good question Wolf. My understanding from my limited monitoring of the VI PDP WG email list is that discussions are still ongoing as to whether it will be called a final report as well as whether there will be continued effort to reach consensus on any items. I would rather not set expectations that may not be met without direction from the WG. Also, it seems to me that 18 November could very well be after the posting of the next version of the applicant guidebook because, if there is a 30-day comment period leading up to the Cartagena Board meeting, it probably would need to posted not later than 9 November. If my estimates are correct, it would seem to be too late for any consensus items to be considered for inclusion in the posted guidebook. Regarding the latter point, I have communicated this issue to the WG co-chairs. Chuck From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:05 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Motion re. VI WG Shouldn't we mention the co-chairs' intention to provide the final report before 18 November - in case there is a chance to reach consensus positions by that date? Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. September 2010 19:53 An: Council GNSO Betreff: [council] Motion re. VI WG <<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10.doc>> 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
Chuck, your E-Mail just crossed my related amendment suggestion. If there is no real chance for consensus until the "final" report shall be provided then the amendment is not necessary. Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. September 2010 15:21 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Motion re. VI WG Good question Wolf. My understanding from my limited monitoring of the VI PDP WG email list is that discussions are still ongoing as to whether it will be called a final report as well as whether there will be continued effort to reach consensus on any items. I would rather not set expectations that may not be met without direction from the WG. Also, it seems to me that 18 November could very well be after the posting of the next version of the applicant guidebook because, if there is a 30-day comment period leading up to the Cartagena Board meeting, it probably would need to posted not later than 9 November. If my estimates are correct, it would seem to be too late for any consensus items to be considered for inclusion in the posted guidebook. Regarding the latter point, I have communicated this issue to the WG co-chairs. Chuck From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:05 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Motion re. VI WG Shouldn't we mention the co-chairs' intention to provide the final report before 18 November - in case there is a chance to reach consensus positions by that date? Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. September 2010 19:53 An: Council GNSO Betreff: [council] Motion re. VI WG <<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10.doc>> 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
Thanks Chuck. It sounds negative to me. Why not put something that reflects that, "whilst many different issues were discussed and many different models reviewed, consensus among the stakeholders within the WG could not be reached". I would also add something like; "the interim report previously provided will now me marked final and submitted as appropriate". Does this help? Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:53 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Motion re. VI WG <<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10.doc>> 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
Thanks for the good feedback Adrian and please see my responses below. Chuck From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 6:07 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Subject: RE: Motion re. VI WG Thanks Chuck. It sounds negative to me. Why not put something that reflects that, "whilst many different issues were discussed and many different models reviewed, consensus among the stakeholders within the WG could not be reached". [Gomes, Chuck] The intent was not to be negative but simply factual, but I personally would rather it not come across as negative so I like your suggestion. I don't believe it has been seconded yet so I will go ahead and change it. I would also add something like; "the interim report previously provided will now me marked final and submitted as appropriate". [Gomes, Chuck] I think this is a decision for the WG, not the Council. Also, I know that the WG is trying to incorporate the public comments, which seems like a reasonable step to take. Does this help? Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:53 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Motion re. VI WG <<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10.doc>> 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
participants (3)
-
Adrian Kinderis
-
Gomes, Chuck
-
KnobenW@telekom.de