<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council
- To: "Neuman,Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:32:24 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>I agree with Jeff. And even if the Board requested that
we do this, I would first want to clearly understand why it did so. It is not
needed for the Board to review the interim report, so if they requested this
then they have some other reason in mind.<BR></div>
<div><BR></div>
<div>Tim </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=replyBlockquote style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY:
verdana" webmail="1">
<DIV id=wmQuoteWrapper>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re:
[gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council<BR>From: "Neuman, Jeff" <<a
href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx";>Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>Date:
Mon, August 16, 2010 7:24 pm<BR>To: "'<a
href="mailto:avri@xxxxxxx";>avri@xxxxxxx</a>'" <<a
href="mailto:avri@xxxxxxx";>avri@xxxxxxx</a>>, "'<a
href="mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx";>Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx</a>'"<BR><<a
href="mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx";>Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx</a>><BR><BR><BR>Avri
- I don't understand your arguments.<BR><BR>But, I do not believe that the
Council should get in the habit of formally submitting interim reports to the
Board. That is a formal action under the pdp process in the bylaws (the act of
forwarding something to the board). <BR><BR>All I am asking as the insertion of
the concept of this being sent in response to a board request and that this is
not a finished product.<BR><BR>I really don't understand why you believe that
is a controversial request. <BR>Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.<BR>Vice President, Law
& Policy<BR>NeuStar, Inc.<BR><a
href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx";>Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx</a><BR><BR><BR><BR>-----
Original Message -----<BR>From: <a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx</a>
<<a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>To:
<a href="mailto:gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx</a> <<a
href="mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx";>Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>Sent:
Mon Aug 16 19:53:03 2010<BR>Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the
Council<BR><BR><BR>Hi,<BR><BR>But aren't you trying to establish a precedent
that the GNSO Council may not send status updates to the Board when it thinks
it should? I think that is a bad precedent.<BR><BR>Sending updates seems to me
to fall well within the prerogatives of a manager of the process. they have the
right, in fact responsibility, to communicate whatever they feel needs to be
communicated as long as they don't mislead anyone about the status of a group
or its efforts.<BR><BR>I recommend leaving the motion as
is.<BR><BR>a.<BR><BR>They really appreciate the efforts of every member of the
group? hmmm.<BR><BR>On 16 Aug 2010, at 19:23, Neuman, Jeff wrote:<BR><BR>>
Thanks Mikey. This is a lot better than the original. One thing I would like to
see here for purpose of posterity and so this does not establish bad precedent
is a WHEREAS clause the recognizes that this is being forwarded to the Board in
response to a request from the Board to do so (even if such request was
informal). You can add it to an already existing WHEREAS clause, but it should
be in there that this is not the GNSO Council doing this on its own, but rather
is in response to a Board request.<BR>> <BR>> I would also like to reword
one of the resolutions to include the following concept:<BR>> <BR>>
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
concrete recommendations in a final report.<BR>> <BR>> I am not wedded to
the words, but rather would hope that the concept is captured.<BR>> <BR>>
Thanks.<BR>> <BR>> Jeffrey J. Neuman <BR>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice
President, Law & Policy<BR>> <BR>> The information contained in this
e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and
may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately and delete the original message.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> From: <a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx</a>
[<a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx</a>]
On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor<BR>> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 7:02
PM<BR>> To: <a
href="mailto:gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx</a><BR>>
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council<BR>> <BR>> hi
all,<BR>> <BR>> Margie and i have revised the motion based on the
conversation during today's call. see if this works for you...<BR>> <BR>>
Motion to Forward the Revised Initial Report on the Vertical Integration PDP to
the ICANN Board.<BR>> Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved
a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between
registries and registrars;<BR>> Whereas the VI Working Group has produced
its Revised Initial Report and has presented it to the GNSO Council on 18
August; and,<BR>> <BR>> 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;<BR>> <BR>> Whereas, the GNSO Council
has reviewed the Revised Initial Report, and desires to forward the Revised
Initial Report to the ICANN Board;<BR>> NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:<BR>>
<BR>> 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;<BR>> <BR>>
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;<BR>> 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; <BR>> <BR>> RESOLVED
FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to make the appropriate
notifications to the ICANN Secretary and to the community.<BR>> <BR>>
thanks,<BR>> <BR>> mikey<BR>> <BR>> - - - - - - - - -<BR>> phone
651-647-6109 <BR>> fax 866-280-2356 <BR>> web <a
href="http://www.haven2.com";>http://www.haven2.com</a><BR>> handle
OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)<BR>>
<BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|