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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1

Le 16 juil. 2010 à 21:55, Diaz, Paul a écrit :

> 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
>  
> 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.
>