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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My personal reasoning was very simple:  A simple and brief communication 
listing the summary points that are supported by the WG could be helpful to the 
Board if it was received before the Board meeting on 28 October; if such a 
communication is sent to the Council and then to the Board, then it would not 
be received before 28 October.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 10:53 AM
To: 'Margie Milam'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points -- pls 
review/comment within 24 hours

 

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" <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 
<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
                Date: Mon, October 25, 2010 5:07 pm
                To: "'Neuman, Jeff'" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> >, "'Tim Ruiz'"
                <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> >, <mike@xxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx> >
                Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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>  [mailto: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 <mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx> 
                Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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