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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

SRSU is an exception to most of the plans (though not to Free Trade).  It has 
been much discussed, but it is just an exception.  I'm not sure why it has a 
privileged position among the other exceptions that were also proposed and 
discussed, some more than others.  I don't believe that air time, absent 
consensus, should give it a special place.  The IPC proposal, unlike the others 
put forward, never attempted to deal with the totality of the VI issue, it was 
always a narrowly-tailored exception, explicitly so.  As such, it should take 
its place in rank among the other exceptions.


On Jul 16, 2010, at 4:46 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 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.)
>