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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

As I said, such a direct meassage is inappropriate if it is intended in
any way to reflect any WG positions, consensus, etc. And as I said,
there are Board members who are following this list and who will
certainly be sure that the Board is aware of any current discussions.

The Chair of the Council may have given his personal opinion in his
personal capacity but it should in no way be taken as the opinion of the
Council and I highly doubt if the Chair meant it in any other way. 


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: Tue, October 26, 2010 9:52 am
> To: "'Margie Milam'" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>,
> <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Chuck might weigh in on this to
> clarify the matter, but my written comment (below) reported what was discussed
> with the GNSO Chairman in this regard.  (Sorry if I put words into your mouth,
> Margie.  Not intended.)
> 
>  
> 
> 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).
> 
>  
> 
> To be clear, I am pushing this closure for
> the sole reason of finishing this phase of the work in a responsible manner. 
> The next phase and who will be involved in it is separate matter.
> 
>  
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
>  
> 
> RA
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Ronald N. Andruff
> 
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:
> owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Margie Milam
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010
> 10:28 AM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10]
> refined version of Roberto's bullet-points -- pls review/comment within 24
> hours
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 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"  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" 
> Date: Mon, October 25, 2010 5:07 pm
> To: "'Neuman, Jeff'" ,
> "'Tim Ruiz'"
> ,
> 
> Cc: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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&#8217;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 &#8211; 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>