Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
- To: "'mike@xxxxxxxxxx'" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'krosette@xxxxxxx'" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
- From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:46:52 -0400
Mikey - how long do we have to comment on Kristina's text. I believe the text
is way too detailed for what this group should put out in an initial report and
purports to show endorsement of the IPC implementation of not only SRSU, but
also SRMU, which was hardly the case.
I will be providing me edits as quickly as I can, but we cannot rush this. I
find it amazing that new things were added to the report as a whole in less
than 24 hours before submission.
As previously stated, let's define SRSU as a concept in the body of the report,
but the specific implementation (like eligibility requirements, etc.) needs to
be pushed back to an appendix under the IPC proposal. Just because 1 proponent
of the SRSU had a requirement that the SRSU could not be from a party whose
primary business is that of a registry, registrar, reseller, etc. Does NOT mean
this was endorsed in any way by the group.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Rosette, Kristina <krosette@xxxxxxx>
Cc: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri Jul 16 01:38:33 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
way to go Kristina. your timing is perfect. i was just looking wistfully at
that section of the report and hoping to find a new draft when i opened email.
On Jul 16, 2010, at 12:08 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
Here's revised SRSU draft text. In the interests of time, I am sending this to
the list even though Milton and Avri have not had a chance to review it. It's
subject to any changes they may have.
I've also included, for completeness, reference to the SRMU exception that the
One section I have not included is the level of support. Milton and I both
believe that there may be consensus support for the SRSU exception among the
non-contracted party house members of the WG. If we could determine that on
the list (as opposed to on the call), I can add the relevant text.
<<07162010 SR Initial Report text.DOC>>
<07162010 SR Initial Report text.DOC>
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)