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 -----Original Message----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:38 To: <KnobenW@telekom.de> Cc: <cgomes@verisign.com>; <council@gnso.icann.org> 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, <KnobenW@telekom.de> 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 <<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10.doc>>

_____________________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:53 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Motion re. VI WG

<< File: 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

<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10 -WUK amend.doc>

Right, I was speaking from that perspective. Once we have the final report it is Council's responsibility to decide where to go from there (within parameters of course). Tim -----Original Message----- From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@icann.org> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:09:32 To: tim@godaddy.com<tim@godaddy.com> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG Tim, The Working Group still has some work to do prior to submitting the Final Report-specifically, review of the comments submitted during the public comment period and updating the Final Report as appropriate. This is an important step in the PDP process, and important for accountability purposes. As a result, it may be premature to end the PDP now, prior to receiving the Final Report. Also, please note that the charter for the VI-WG was quite broad- it was intended to apply to both existing gTLDs and New gTLDs. As a result, there will be need for Council action in either revising the charter or ending the PDP, once the Final Report is submitted. Best Regards, Margie _________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN _________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of tim@godaddy.com Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 11:36 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; KnobenW@telekom.de Cc: cgomes@verisign.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG 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 <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:38 +0200 To: <KnobenW@telekom.de> Cc: <cgomes@verisign.com>; <council@gnso.icann.org> 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, <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> 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> [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 <<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10.doc>> _____________________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:53 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Motion re. VI WG << File: 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 <Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10 -WUK amend.doc>

I believe it was “hasn’t” and “won’t” reach consensus, which is the key part here Stephane. Let’s wind it up gang. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, 1 October 2010 8:19 AM To: tim@godaddy.com Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org; KnobenW@telekom.de; cgomes@verisign.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG 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 Gelder Directeur général / General manager INDOM.com<http://INDOM.com> Noms de domaine / Domain names Sent from my iPad Le 30 sept. 2010 à 19:35, tim@godaddy.com<mailto: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 <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:38 +0200 To: <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> Cc: <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>; <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> 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, <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> 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> [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 <<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10.doc>> _____________________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:53 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Motion re. VI WG << File: 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 <Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10 -WUK amend.doc>

May I ask a question. While there is no consensus within VI WG, instead of discussing administrative / procedural issues on how to report / respond to the Board, why don’t we try to discuss main issues of WG disagreements one more time? It will be very convenient to have a short summary presentation of WG chair. To be honest, scrolling 178 pages I’ve got an expression that this huge piece of professional work, votes on variants, reference materials… all this just to get around some very basic facts of conflicting interests. Should we try to get right diagnosis at least? Thank you! --andrei From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:04 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: tim@godaddy.com; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; KnobenW@telekom.de; cgomes@verisign.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG Let me be clear: I don't want to drag this on anymore than anyone else. My question is: can the Council take it upon himself to call a WG's report final and consider its work done, even though that's not what the WG itself has reported to us? I'm all for executive decisions, as long as they are made within the process that's been set for the body making them. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur général / General manager INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain names Sent from my iPad Le 1 oct. 2010 à 03:04, Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> a écrit : I believe it was “hasn’t” and “won’t” reach consensus, which is the key part here Stephane. Let’s wind it up gang. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, 1 October 2010 8:19 AM To: tim@godaddy.com Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org; KnobenW@telekom.de; cgomes@verisign.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG 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 Gelder Directeur 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 <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:38 +0200 To: <KnobenW@telekom.de> Cc: <cgomes@verisign.com>; <council@gnso.icann.org> 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, <KnobenW@telekom.de> 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 <<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10.doc>> _____________________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:53 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Motion re. VI WG << File: 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 <Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10 -WUK amend.doc>