Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] GNSO Council -- VI motion fails for lack of a second

[tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]

What would really be strange is if such a motion actually passes. It is 
unprecedented at the interim report stage and personally I think it is a really 
bad idea and would set a possibly dangerous precedent.

And  the Board does not need the Council to send it the report in order to 
consider it during their discussions. 

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:03:59 
To: Mike O'Connor<mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: vertical integration wg<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] GNSO Council -- VI motion fails for lack of a 
second

That's just plain old strange....

On Aug 26, 2010, at 4:44 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:

> hi all,
> 
> i just listened to the portion of the GNSO Council relating to our Working 
> Group.  here's the motion as it was made by Chuck Gomes.
> 
> Motion made by: Chuck Gomes
> 
> 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 with the understanding that the 
> VI Working Group will continue to work through these issues to attempt to 
> produce consensus recommendations in a final report.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> it failed for lack of a second.
> 
> i bet they appreciate all our hard work nonetheless.  :-)
> 
> 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.)
>