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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Since when is a motion required for that? Are we going to start motions
on your reports to the Board at public meetings? IF the Council insists
on doing this then the motion should be so worded and any notion of
"submitting the initial report" to the Board should be struck. But
again, the motion is just not necessary, has not been done, and is not
in line with the PDP.      


Tim


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, August 18, 2010 5:27 pm
> To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>,       
> St���©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Neuman,Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, <avri@xxxxxxx>,       
> <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
>    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;
>    St�©phane 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>;
>    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
> 
>    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; St�©phane 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>;
>    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
> 
>    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; St�©phane 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: St�©phane 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: St�©phane 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?
> 
>    St�©phane
>    Le 18 ao�»t 2010 �  18:34,
>    tim@xxxxxxxxxxx a �©crit :
> 
>    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: St�©phane 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.
> 
>    St�©phane
>    Le 17 ao�»t 2010 �  19:32, Tim
>    Ruiz a �©crit :
> 
>    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.)
>    >