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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike brings up an important issue, which I also support for the same reasons he 
stated. 

RA 

________________________________________
Ron Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.rnapartners.com

-----Original Message-----
From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:34:31 
To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text

Roberto,

 

It is critically important to identify SG affiliation when discussing poll
results - or any other method of measuring consensus -- from a WG.  This is
because WG's are usually heavily weighted with contract party
representatives, who often outnumber non-contract party representatives.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 10:50 AM
To: 'Milton L Mueller'; jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx; krosette@xxxxxxx;
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx; mike@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text

 

I am wondering whether, in light of the revised way the "new" GNSO should
work, support from SGs is appropriate in a WG report.

This will come out, without any doubt, in the Council discussion, but one of
the things we were trying to do in the GNSO Review was to separate the
consensus processes in WGs from the votes in the Council.

 

Just my opinion.

Actually, this does not mean that the WG should not note support, but not
make it a matter of SGs.

 

Roberto

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Friday, 16 July 2010 17:50
To: jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx; krosette@xxxxxxx; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx;
mike@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text

If so, support of NCSG members for SR/MU should be noted in the report. The
combination of CSG and NCSG indicates an important level of support among
GNSO user representatives, even if it does not constitute consensus. 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx

I also think that SRMU is a case we pretty much rejected as too difficult to
define without risking gaming and abuse. So the the emphasis should
definitely be on the SRSU.