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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<GNSO-OSC-OPS hat == "on">
The SOIs MUST contain the accurate, current, statements of interests 
of the volunteers. All of the volunteers. That's everyone except Staff.




On 7/16/10 4:24 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> Point of order.....
>
> In addition to SG, what is more important to identify are those that
> are applying for, or advising applicants, for new gtlds. This WG is
> unique in that respect. While normally you may be considered a BC rep,
> often your answers are as an advisor to new gtld reps. All of that is
> great, but just need to make everything clear.
> 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*: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Sent*: Fri Jul 16 14:34:31 2010
> *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.