Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated Summary and Revised Initial Report

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Margie,

Why did you take out the part that this was a result of a board request? Was 
this not requested by the Board? When one looks back at this process, I want it 
clear that the only reason that an interim report is being sent by the council 
to the board is because of their request.

Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx


________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue Aug 17 11:30:16 2010
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated Summary and Revised Initial Report

Dear All,

Please find enclosed for your review the updated Summary of Public Comments 
that includes the comments from yesterday’s call.   In preparing this document, 
 I reviewed the comments to DAG v.4  but realized that it would be a 
significant task to attempt to review and analyze all of the comments in a 
short amount of time.   Instead, I included a reference to the DAG v. 4 
comments in the body of the summary.

Also, please review the attached Revised Initial Report that is redlined to 
reflect the changes from the Initial Report.    I did not include  the annexes, 
due to the size of the document.   The annexes will not change except to add 
the Summary of Public Comment as Annex L to the Revised Initial Report.

Finally, with regard to the comments on the motion received from Jeff Neuman, I 
suggest that the motion be updated as follows:

Motion to Forward the Revised Initial Report on the Vertical Integration PDP to 
the ICANN Board.

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.



As indicated by Mikey,  we will publish the Revised Initial Report tomorrow, so 
please provide any comments to the attached documents by COB today.

Best Regards,

Margie

_____________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
_____________