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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry Roberto. I can appreciate that.

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council
> From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, August 19, 2010 9:41 am
> To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
>    I am definitively not making
>    fun at you, I was only
>    trying to take some of the
>    pressure off with some humour,
>    in the attempt (failed,
>    apparently) to call the
>    attention of the WG away from
>    the issue of the Council
>    forwarding the report or not
>    to the Board (which I maintain
>    is off topic for this WG) back
>    into substantial work.
>    If I may have a second try at
>    a humoristic note, hoping that
>    you all will take it as such
>    and nobody gets offended, I
>    would like to say that I want
>    to avoid that our next report
>    contains only one item, that
>    reads: "Discussed what to do
>    with the first report".
>    Cheers,
>    Roberto
> 
>      _________________________
>    From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
>    [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>    Sent: Thursday, 19 August 2010
>    13:31
>    To: Roberto Gaetano;
>    owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx;
>    Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>    Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]
>    Revised motion for the Council
>      The point is the interim
>      report is not forwarded to
>      the board. You can make fun
>      of me if you like, but the
>      PDP serves an important
>      purpose and the process
>      should be followed.
>      That doesn't mean they
>      cannot read the interim
>      report and they can
>      certainly discuss it during
>      their retreat.
>      Tim
>      Sent from my Verizon
>      Wireless BlackBerry
>        ______________________
>    From: "Roberto Gaetano"
>    <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
>    Sender:
>    owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>    Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010
>    07:22:40 +0200
>    To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>    Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10]
>    Revised motion for the Council
>    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@ic
>    ann.org] 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@ic
>    ann.org] 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 shouldnt 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>;
>    St�©phane Van
>    Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indo
>    m.com>
>    Cc:
>    Neuman,Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@neusta
>    r.us>; <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@ic
>    ann.org] 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@neusta
>    r.us>;
>    '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@neusta
>    r.us>;
>    '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@ic
>    ann.org] 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.)
>    >