RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

1.  Very little of this text is actually new.  Most of it was
distributed to the WG 2 months ago or earlier this week.
 
2.  There's no endorsement intended.  It's indisputable that the IPC has
put forward the most detailed SRSU exception proposal, and the so-called
"implementation details" are essential elements of the .brand exception
it has proposed.   We all know that putting the details in the appendix
means that most people outside the VI WG won't read them - although they
will certainly comment on it.  (Some of the most vocal opponents of the
IRT recommendations at the Sydney meeting admitted - either directly or
indirectly by displaying complete ignorance of key points - by the Seoul
meeting that they hadn't actually read the report.)  It's important to
avoid that situation again as it undermines the confidence in the
process by those who don't spend as much time in ICANNland as we all do.
It also undermines all of the work that all of us have done on the WG.
I intentionally relegated them to a footnote so that they were easily
accessible, but not given the prominence of "regular text" inclusion.
If the "implementation details" are deleted from this proposal, then
they should be deleted from all of the other proposals too.  In that
case, look for my redline.
 
3.  I have no objection to someone who opposes an SRSU exception
providing generally representative text (e.g, Critics of the SRSU
exception . . . .).  Just don't expect me to write it.  I'm too far
behind from being out of the office for 4 days.   
 
4. Everyone on the WG who has put forward some iteration of SRSU has had
at least a week to send me text that they wanted included.  I haven't
received a word.  I also still haven't read the Initial Report (let's
not forget that it was circulated only a few days ago - when I was in
the middle of the Atlantic Ocean without Internet access).  If there's
text re: SRSU in other proposals that can be copied over or
incorporated, I have no problem with that.  
 
 
________________________________

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:47 AM
To: 'mike@xxxxxxxxxx'; Rosette, Kristina
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.)