RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
Please find enclosed my proposed revisions to the SRSU text provided by Kristina: The highlights of my changes include: 1. Removing most of the references to SRMU. Although it was initially discussed, the group did not really focus on that for most of its calls or even the polls; and 2. Moving the IPC implementation specifics to an appendix so as to not imply endorsement of the VI WG on any specific implementation With such little time remaining, I strongly urge that we not try to push through agendas as much as possible in the report. All viewpoints should be represented in the report, but lets not create the perception that any of the specific proposals or implementations have any sort of WG endorsement or consensus at this stage. Thanks. As usual, no pride in authorship. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:47 AM To: 'mike@xxxxxxxxxx'; 'krosette@xxxxxxx' Cc: 'gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx' Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text 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 NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx ________________________________ 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 Woohoo! 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. thanks! mikey On Jul 16, 2010, at 12:08 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: All, 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 IPC proposed. 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. K <<07162010 SR Initial Report text.DOC>> <07162010 SR Initial Report text.DOC> - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) Attachment:
Comments to SRSU by IPC.docx
|