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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Kristina.  Whether something is in a footnote or appendix, I am not so 
concerned about that.  Either one is fine.  Yes the IPC distributed its 
proposal 2 months ago.  The RySG submitted its proposal in April 2009.  I don't 
think that is the issue.  The IPC proposal should stay in tact as is with no 
changes.  Not recommending any changes to that at all.  I just want to the 
Initial Report to reflect the sense of the full group and I believe a number of 
people on the call yesterday expressed (even supporters of SRSU like myself) 
that while in concept the SRSU is something we can support, the exact details 
must be worked on.

Its actually interesting you point to the IRT Report, because in that case, 
when the IRT changed elements that were in the initial report to reflect more 
comprehensive discussions for the final report, some in the IP community were 
up in arms that we could make such drastic changes (like the elimination of the 
GPML).  I am trying to avoid that here, where we just put things in the body of 
the initial report making it appear as if there is wide support within the VI 
WG, and then having to retract it later on.  If in this case we change the 
implementation details from what is in the IPC proposal, I am sure some will be 
up in arms about that as well because we did put it in the initial report.

I hope that makes sense and again want to state that I do support the concept 
of the SRSU.

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: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:56 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; mike@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text

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.)