Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points -- pls review/comment within 24 hours

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.

Stéphane

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.
> 
> Tim 
> -------- 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,
>  
> RA
>  
> 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