RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Point of order

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Apology accepted, Jeff.

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.


 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 8:39 PM
To: 'randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Point of order


Ron,

I would have to go back and relisten, but the point I was making (which
reflected a position you and I discussed), was that I asked for everyone to
put their opinion in writing rather than have 1 person represent the views
of others.

If I misunderstood your view, I apologize, but that was the point I was
making and thanks for putting your view in writing.

I do not believe the chairs need to take any action.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed Jun 09 20:05:46 2010
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Point of order


To the Co-Chairs,

I have been traveling abroad since this past weekend and will continue to be
on the road through to Brussels so I was not able to be on Monday's call.  I
had asked Glen to give my apologies for any VI WG calls I would not be on,
unless I was able to connect, but that was unfortunately overlooked on the
June 7th call.  I just listened to the MP3 recording and was surprised and
dismayed when I heard Jeff N take the liberty of making a statement about my
position when, in fact, I was not on the call to respond.

Going forward, I ask that the Co-chairs please be sure that no one speaks
about another WG member's comments or makes comments about another member's
position when that individual cannot respond.  Otherwise misinformation will
cloud the discussion more than the facts we are dealing with...

For the record, I support the RACK+ proposal because I believe in the
principles that have been previously stated on many occasions on this list,
but most importantly I believe that we need to advance the VI/CO discussions
in a studied, prudent manner as we embark on a new era where, at any time,
any entity can come forward to apply to manage a TLD.  I strongly believe
that we need to get the first round of new gTLDs under our belts to
understand what needs to be refined, retooled, and most importantly
where/how compliance demands fit in to this new picture before we introduce
VI.  Having said that, I believe that with further study and dialogue we
will find solutions to issues such as SRSU and even SRMU, perhaps even
before the first round, but we simply need to do this work in an orderly
fashion.  

While this may inconvenience some potential applicants that have put the
cart before the horse, my reason for being a part of this WG is to serve
ICANN -- the institution -- by adding my voice to growing chorus that is
interested in fulfilling our mandate by doing our job with prudence (as
opposed to rushing through it).  I would not be surprised to see some
modifications to the RACK+ proposal as the work goes forward, but, like
Alan, it seems to me that the RACK+ proposal is the best one on the table at
this time.

Thank you,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 12:07 PM
To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] new version of the proposal matrix


I propose we use Brian's suggestion - RACK - but include a + to indicate
that there is support from others besides the original drafters. So it
would be - RACK+

Tim 
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] new version of the proposal matrix
From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, June 08, 2010 8:57 am
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx

hi all,

here's the latest version of the proposal matrix. i've done just a few
things...

-- i grayed-out the proposals that have now merged into others and moved
them to the bottom of the table 

-- i've included Kathy's update to the APGRECA merged proposal

-- i've added Siva's proposal

-- i've rejiggered it so that it should print (and PDF) as one page 

Eric, i wasn't sure whether you wanted the CORE proposal to remain
stand-alone or merge with the APGRECA one, so i left it in this version
of the matrix -- let me know if you'd like to be merged into what would
then become the APGRECAC proposal. note -- anagrams available from
APGRECA include CAGE RAP and ARC PAGE while adding CORE's "C" narrows
the choice somewhat but includes GRACE CAP. in both cases there are
other anagram options that will undoubtedly be seized upon by our
less-cautious WG members...

mikey


- - - - - - - - -
phone 651-647-6109 
fax 866-280-2356 
web www.haven2.com
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)