Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] CONSENSUS POLL OPEN -- please complete it before our call on Thursday
- To: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] CONSENSUS POLL OPEN -- please complete it before our call on Thursday
- From: Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 05:32:23 -0400
Jeff, just a point of clarification.
The RACK group did not write BRU1 -- there definitely were folks in the BRU1
group who did not support the RACK proposal. BRU1 was an attempt to bridge the
gap between JN2 supporters, the big majority of whom were the registrar members
of the WG (see the results of the last poll), and the RACK group.
As discussed on the last call and from my perspective, the biggest difference
between the RACK proposal and the BRU1 proposal is that BRU1 permits registrars
and their affiliates to serve as RSPs if they do not control the pricing,
policies and registrar selection process of the registry AND there is a direct
contract between ICANN and the RSP. The agreement would prohibit the RSP from
engaging in any favoritism, misuse of data, etc. It also would include a
strict sanctions program, including the potential loss of the ability to be an
RSP in that TLD or any other. As such, the RSP/Registrar Affiliate would be
constrained from bad acts by its agreement with its independent customer, the
registry operator, as well as its direct accreditation agreement with ICANN.
My hope is/was that BRU1 would receive support from registrars who want to
provide back-end services and the folks who supported the RACK proposal.
The BRU2 proposal does not provide the same opportunity for registrars to serve
as back-end providers. It is much more restrictive.
On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:04 AM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
> A couple of quick comments on the poll:
> 1- Awesome job putting this together. It looks great
> 2 - The opening line of the BRU1 statement begins "There was strong
> consensus................" This is misleading as there was strong consensus
> of the RACK group that wrote BRU1. None of the other proposals state this and
> ask this be corrected immediately as it is misleading
> 3 - Question 21 asks in addition to 2. Are these questions linked? It seems
> they are.
> 4 - Why are we expressing minority opinions in Question 34? If Kathy Kleinman
> is opposed to Question 34 she can answer opposed. The other groups may have
> had consensus but I did not hear unanimous consent from other groups. They
> did not list all dissenting opinions from each member
> 5 - I thought that BRU2 allowed self distribution up to the de-minimus amount
> , 2% or 5%. may need some help from others in group on this
> Jeff Eckhaus
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Mike O'Connor [mike@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 6:40 PM
> To: Jon Nevett
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] CONSENSUS POLL OPEN -- please complete it before
> our call on Thursday
> hi Jon,
> egad... what a good idea.
> here's a link to a "preview" of the poll -- it looks just like the poll,
> except it doesn't collect results. the only trick is, you have to put
> *something* in the required "name" question to get to the next page. my
> favorite answer is usually "sdsdsd"... your choice.
> On Jul 13, 2010, at 7:57 PM, Jon Nevett wrote:
>> Thanks for your hard work on this. Would you publish the poll questions for
>> review in an e-mail . . . just in case something got lost in the translation
>> in one of the questions.
>> On Jul 13, 2010, at 8:28 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>>> hi all,
>>> thanks for all your hard work on various proposals, atoms, etc.
>>> i've spent the afternoon cutting and pasting and have a (pretty long) poll
>>> put together for you. i found that i reviewed your work pretty carefully
>>> and learned a lot as i put the poll together. i'm hoping it will prompt
>>> you to look through your collective work with "fresh eyes" as you complete
>>> here's the link to the poll
>>> PLEASE try to complete it by 3 hours before our call on Thursday to give me
>>> a bit of time to scratch together a preliminary summary.
>>> note -- i didn't get updated versions of the SRSU or Compliance writeups,
>>> so they're cobbled together from the drafts we had for the Monday call.
>>> try to imagine where we might take them as we continue to refine these
>>> drafts over the next few weeks (while the public comment period is open)
>>> when expressing your support...
>>> - - - - - - - - -
>>> phone 651-647-6109
>>> fax 866-280-2356
>>> web http://www.haven2.com
>>> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
>>> Google, etc.)
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone 651-647-6109
> fax 866-280-2356
> web http://www.haven2.com
> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include
> privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media,
> Inc. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the
> intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are
> not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this
> message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.