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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Hi Jarkko

Good input.     If you believe the Poll results give us any guidance (note that 
a new version with approx 4 more votes will be issued shortly) it's  
interesting to see that SRSU was one of only two questions/ proposals where  
'In Favor'  votes were greater than 50%.   51.6% were in favor and another 19% 
said they could live with it  (Q76).      This could obviously change when  the 
new votes are tallied.

Having said all that,  I agree with Jeff N when he says this reflects a general 
endorsement of the SRSU principle as an exception --  and that actual support 
varies depending on the precise definition of SRSU and the manner in which an 
exception would be granted.

I personally think there is a level of consensus for a 'strict' version of SRSU 
---  but we haven't yet found the best way to define that.

RT




On Jul 16, 2010, at 7:28 AM, jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 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.)
> 
>