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

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

Thought as much. Thanks for clarifying Margie.

Stéphane

Envoyé de mon iPhone4

Le 26 oct. 2010 à 16:27, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Hi-
> 
> Just to clarify my comments-  I did not indicate that something needs to be 
> sent to the Board from the VI WG at this time.   My point was that the public 
> comments need to be properly evaluated and included in the Final Report, 
> which would be sent to the GNSO Council upon completion of the Phase I work.  
> The GNSO Council would then decide whether to approve of the recommendations 
> (if any) and/or to  send  the Final Report to the Board.     
> 
>  
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Margie
> 
>  
> 
> __________
> 
>  
> 
> Margie Milam
> 
> Senior Policy Counselor
> 
> ICANN
> 
> __________
> 
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 5:15 AM
> To: Tim Ruiz
> Cc: Ron Andruff; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Neuman,Jeff; mike@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points -- 
> pls review/comment within 24 hours
> 
>  
> 
> 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