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

["Thomas Barrett - EnCirca" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think both of your arguments have some merit on this issue.
 
it appears that there may be a way to compromise.  what if the title of the
section was changed?
 
Here is my proposed edit:
 
the section currently reads 
 
"Special Consideration for a Single Registrant, Single User (SRSU)
Exception."
As highlighted above, the VI Working Group discussed several specific
exceptions to prohibitions on vertical integration and cross-ownership.  One
such proposed exception is for single-registrant registries, which were
divided into single-user (SRSU) and multiple-user (SRMU) subcategories. 
 
===
Since it follows the "Exceptions" section, perhaps it would be more
appropriately described as
===
 
"An example of one proposed exception."
As highlighted above, the VI Working Group discussed several specific
exceptions to prohibitions on vertical integration and cross-ownership.
Although none of these achieved concensus, one proposal has been more
development than others and received a lot of discussion.  This is the
proposed exception is for single-registrant registries, which were divided
into single-user (SRSU) and multiple-user (SRMU) subcategories. "
 
regards,
tom barrett
encirca
 
 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 9:12 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; mike@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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.)