Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council
Agree. The PDP process currently adopted as consensus policy is controlling. Sent from a fancy, but restricted keyboarding device. On Aug 18, 2010, at 12:34 PM, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: Stephane, that simply is not true. The VI is a formal PDP WG. There is a process to follow and Council is responsible for manging that process, not taking liberties with it.Tim Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:14:49 +0200 To: Tim Ruiz<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>Cc: Neuman,Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'avri@xxxxxxx'<avri@xxxxxxx>; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the CouncilI agree with Avri that it is the Council's prerogative to send information to the Board when it deems it necessary.I agree with Jeff that the wording of the motion should make it clear that this is an interim report being sent for information purposes while the WG continues its work.As such, the currently redrafted motion looks fine to me. Stéphane Le 17 août 2010 à 19:32, Tim Ruiz a écrit :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.Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, August 16, 2010 7:24 pm To: "'avri@xxxxxxx'" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> Avri - I don't understand your arguments.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).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.I really don't understand why you believe that is a controversial request.Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Vice President, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Mon Aug 16 19:53:03 2010 Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council Hi,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.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.I recommend leaving the motion as is. a.They really appreciate the efforts of every member of the group? hmmm.On 16 Aug 2010, at 19:23, Neuman, Jeff wrote:> 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.>> I would also like to reword one of the resolutions to include the following concept:>> 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.>> I am not wedded to the words, but rather would hope that the concept is captured.> > Thanks. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy >> 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.> >> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi- feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 7:02 PM > To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council > > hi all, >> Margie and i have revised the motion based on the conversation during today's call. see if this works for you...>> 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; > 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.> > thanks, > > mikey > > - - - - - - - - - > phone 651-647-6109 > fax 866-280-2356 > web http://www.haven2.com> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)>
|