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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Given that I've been OOO and my non-ICANN in box has close to 1000
messages, I'll be offline (for ICANN matters) for the next several
hours.  I'll send around a re-draft today (but it will likely be
tonight).
 
K  


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
        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.)