RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The intent is for the Council, as the PDP management body, to communicate the 
status of the WG at this point in time.

 

Chuck

 

From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 6:21 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Neuman,Jeff; avri@xxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

 

And I'm voicing my concern about the motion. It is still unclear what purpose 
it serves or what the intent is. Given this involves an active PDP both should 
be crystal clear.


Tim

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

________________________________

From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 

Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:12:47 -0400

To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>

Cc: Neuman,Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>; <avri@xxxxxxx>; 
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>

Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

 

Tim,

 

That is what we are doing by introducing a motion.

 

Chuck

 

From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 6:09 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Neuman,Jeff; avri@xxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

 

That's correct in regards to the PDP process, we should be very cautious.

Tim

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

________________________________

From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:07:02 -0400

To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>

Cc: Neuman,Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>; <avri@xxxxxxx>; 
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>

Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

 

So we shouldn't do anything that is not specifically provided for?  That would 
require the PDP process to include every conceivable action or require the 
Council to act on a motion if it is not specifically provided for.

 

Chuck

 

From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 4:56 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Neuman,Jeff; avri@xxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

 

Actually it's the other way around. Show me in the PDP process where taking 
action like this on an interim report is provided for. It isn't, and I think 
for good reason.

Tim

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

________________________________

From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:21:50 -0400

To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>

Cc: Neuman,Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>; <avri@xxxxxxx>; 
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>

Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

 

I have looked at it very closely Tim, many times.  Please point me to anything 
in the Bylaws that supports your opinion.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:36 PM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Neuman,Jeff; 'avri@xxxxxxx'; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

 

In a word, no. Please review the PDP process in the bylaws.

Tim

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

________________________________

From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> 

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 19:18:08 +0200

To: <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 Council

 

I understand that Tim. And as the entity that commissioned the VI WG, isn't the 
Council able to pass on information to the Board that has been officially sent 
to it by the WG?

 

Stéphane

Le 18 août 2010 à 18:34, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx a écrit :

 

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 Council

 

I 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 <http://www.haven2.com/> 
        > handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
Google, etc.)
        >