RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
Like I said in my original message earlier this morning/late last night,
the text I put forward does not include any statement of level of
support, which I believe must be included. I'm hopeful that we can get
that worked out today because it's essential, in my view, that the level
of support be identified. In fact, I think the discussion of each
proposal should include a level of support statement.
Here are my comments on your redline.
________________________________
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 9:04 AM
To: Rosette, Kristina; mike@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
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.)
Attachment:
KR suggestions to JN edits.docx
|