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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

If this abt the separate SRSU piece, I completely disagree. I think all
three of these separate pieces (exceptions, compliance, and SRSU) can be
likely summed up in three sentences. See Richard's sentence for SRSU.
The WG has NOT focused on any of these three, only small subteams not
representative of the entire WG have been working on them.

If current drafts of these three are included, they should be in annexes
and it should be noted that they are only subteam drafts that have not
been fully considered and/or debated by the WG as a whole. That is fair,
that is truthful, and anything else are just attempts to create an
appearance of more weight that is justified.

Tim
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
From: frederick felman <ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, July 16, 2010 11:40 am
To: Kristina Rosette <Krosette@xxxxxxx>, "Neuman, Jeff"
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>

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 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.)