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

[frederick felman <ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kristina and Jeff ­ this is excellent work, we support your draft of SRSU
and SRMU exceptions to VI.


On 7/16/10 6:12 AM, "Kristina Rosette" <Krosette@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
>> don¹t 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.)
>>>  
>>>  
>>>