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

["jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx" <jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

My summer holiday is affecting my ways to participate to the work of the group 
and that's why I haven't been able to be  in the calls lately.

Anyway, I tend to agree with Jeff in this one. I think the text might be a bit 
too complicated.  However, it still manages to capture the essential parts, so 
thank you Kristina for taking the time to formulate it.

I also think that SRMU is a case we pretty much rejected as too difficult to 
define without risking gaming and abuse. So the the emphasis should definitely 
be on the SRSU.

We also previously discussed about limiting the number of names in SRSUs and 
about ICANN fees in SRSUs. To my knowledge we didn't arrive to any particular 
concensus in these issues, but they could be worth mentioning.

Br,

-jr


On 16.7.2010 15.55, "ext Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx> wrote:

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.)