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

["Kathy Kleiman" <kKleiman@xxxxxxx>]

Great. I'll be happy to wait, and to help with revisions.

Best,

 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

.ORG The Public Interest Registry

Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846

 

Visit us online!

Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! <http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> 

Find us on Facebook | dotorg
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/dotorg/203294399456?v=wall> 

See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> 

See our video library on YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> 

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:

Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If
received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

 

 

 

From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:10 AM
To: Kathy Kleiman; Neuman, Jeff; mike@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text- volunteer

 

I'm fine with that.  I think it would be a better use of everyone's time
if you waited for my redraft, which will be quite different.

         

________________________________

        From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kKleiman@xxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:07 AM
        To: Rosette, Kristina; Neuman, Jeff; mike@xxxxxxxxxx
        Cc: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text- volunteer

        Hi Kristina,

        Don't know if it is too late, but I would like to volunteer for
the SRSU drafting team. I think it would be better for us to work
together on the language... and put something out that we all agree upon
(like Exceptions, Compliance). 

        Best,

         

        Kathy Kleiman

        Director of Policy

        .ORG The Public Interest Registry

        Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846

         

        Visit us online!

        Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz!
<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> 

        Find us on Facebook | dotorg
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/dotorg/203294399456?v=wall> 

        See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr
<http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> 

        See our video library on YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> 

         

        CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:

        Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest
Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

         

         

         

        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.)