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

["Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

How will that help?  Won't it be misleading to lump respondents' poll
results by SG when members within those groups are often in
disagreement?  We all participate in this WG in our individual
capacities.  Many participants have already caveated that their views do
not necessarily reflect their employers' positions, much less their
stakeholder groups'.  

 

As Roberto noted, support by SG will be apparent when the GNSO Council
gets its turn at these issues.

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 3:14 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text

 

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

________________________________

From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:34:31 -0700

To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>

ReplyTo: <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.