Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points -- pls review/comment within 24 hours
- To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points -- pls review/comment within 24 hours
- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:15:00 +0200
Once again, I agree with Tim on process and do not believe Margie at any point
implied the WG should send directly to the Board.
Envoyé de mon iPhone4
Le 26 oct. 2010 à 00:14, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> A final report is different, but that goes to Council, not the Board. The
> Council reviews and then Council sends it on to the Board. If that's what
> we're talking about, fine. But it didn't seem to me that everyone had bought
> into a final report and wrapping up the WG just yet.
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points
> -- pls review/comment within 24 hours
> From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, October 25, 2010 5:07 pm
> To: "'Neuman, Jeff'" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Tim Ruiz'"
> <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> Jeff and Tim,
> My posting of one week ago follows. You will note that staff has advised on
> this matter and we are closing it out, as recommended.
> 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.
> 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,
> Ronald N. Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 5:27 PM
> To: Tim Ruiz; mike@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points --
> pls review/comment within 24 hours
> I agree with Tim as well on this. There is no protocol for us to be sending
> anything directly to the Board and that falls outside of the Policy
> Development Process (which we are still in the middle of).
> Even assuming we were to send something to the Board, and I apologize for not
> being able to be on the call (don’t remove me from the list), I do not see
> the value of the specific bullet points. If I were to interpret those bullet
> points (in my own way), this is how I would read them:
> Bullet 1. When we talked about compliance in our report, we really meant it.
> Bullet 2. There is still no consensus on any solution (even though we told
> you that a few weeks ago)
> Bullet 3. We have been doing some work over the past few weeks and we plan
> on doing more, but no consensus yet on any of it.
> Bullet 4. When we discussed that there may be a need for exceptions in our
> report that we sent to you, some of us meant that as well.
> Not to be too cynical (I know – too late), but what do those that support
> sending this list to the Board hope to achieve by sending the list?
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> The information co