Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
- To: <krosette@xxxxxxx>, <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
- From: "jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx" <jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:28:49 +0200
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.
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
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
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
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.
On Jul 16, 2010, at 12:08 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
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
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.
<<07162010 SR Initial Report text.DOC>>
<07162010 SR Initial Report text.DOC>
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)