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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Roberto,

This can put an end to the discussion of this motion, but it will not put an 
end to the discussion of the PDP process and how a number of things this 
working group has been forced to do from the beginning have been on ad hoc 
basis to appease the Board's unrealistic timelines and demands.  A number of 
the demands by the Board (or by those wanting to appease the Board)  have not 
respected the PDP process and we are all jumping through hoops throwing out a 
number of the principals that the group you chaired espoused in its final 
report on how the PDP process should operate.

So, yes I will agree on this group not to bring up these issues again, but this 
group's activities has presented an interesting case study for the PDP-WT to 
examine.

So as the chair of that group, I thank everyone for giving us good material to 
discuss.

Best regards,


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: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:16 PM
To: 'Mike O'Connor'; Neuman, Jeff
Cc: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Astoundingly off-topic [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the 
Council

Jeff,
It should also not go unnoticed that ICANN staff is unwilling into put into the 
motion that the ICANN Board requested this input for their retreat.  It is 
clear to most in the VI Group that this information was requested (although NOT 
in a board motion).  That was consistently the message from the Chairs of this 
group and I know from personal conversations with some Board members that this 
is the case as well.
Actually, I never said that "the ICANN Board requested this input for their 
retreat". I only said that, from personal contacts, I understand that they 
would find useful to have it.
I am not aware of any formal request from their part. Therefore the fact that 
this statement has not been included in the motion does not depend from staff's 
own willingness, but from a specific position of at least one of the co-chairs.
I sincerely hope that this could put an end to the discussion on the motion.
Thanks,
Roberto