RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] A way forward to closure?

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

I have been thinking more about where the VI WG goes from here and two
points have arisen - both related to timing. 

The first issue of timing has to do with finalizing our work this week.
Margie pointed out that the WG must send something to the Board after review
of the public comments, i.e., the final report.  We need to nail down that
final report this week, in my view, so that we establish a definitive VI WG
line for the Board and GNSO Council before their next meetings.  Staff have
intimated to the Council that the October 28th Board meeting will be
decision-making time for the final AG, so the Board needs to get our input
as soon as possible considering they will be meeting Thursday in one week
(10-days from today).  [Turns out that the Board and Council are meeting on
the same day.]  We don't need full consensus on this, and I believe that the
majority of WG would support a final report that included the details of
Roberto's email of today.  I checked with the GNSO Chair regarding the
reporting chain and he is of the opinion that a singular message sent to
PdT, KP and GNSO Chair is the way forward (i.e., we needn't get back into
the issue of whether we send it to Council to forward to the Board, etc.  It
can go direct).

The second issue - whether to dissolve this WG or hibernate it - is a
non-issue.  IF we can get enough agreement from the WG to send our FINAL
report, then, pursuant to Roberto's email, we go back to the Council to ask
about re-chartering this same group or establishing a new issues report/PDP.
In either case, any one who wants to continue on a re-chartered WG or a
newly-chartered WG to complete phase 2 work would be able to.  In short, I
don't see what merit there is in 'hibernating' our WG.

In summary, time (again!) is not our friend here.  Wrapping up our loose
ends (responding to comments) this week will leave the Board a few days more
to determine what they want to do.  Delaying the information we need to send
on would only serve to shed a bad light on the current WG, IMHO.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.