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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

To include little footnotes is not explicitely part of the charter of this
WG and not provided for in the PDP J
R. 
 
 
  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Thursday, 19 August 2010 00:18
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council



Hello All,

 

Perhaps what is ever communication is sent to the Board could include a
little footnote that there was even a lack of consensus within the VI on how
to forward the report to the Board J

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 6:07 PM
To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Neuman,Jeff; 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.)
>