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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

You raise a great point about intra-SG disagreement, so thanks for the
chance to clarify.  I do not mean for votes to be 'lumped together per SG'.
I just mean for voters' SG affiliation to be represented when votes are
reported.  In addition to the concern already expressed, SG affiliation is
also relevant to show intra-SG disagreement, which may also be important for
readers to note.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

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

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

 

From: Diaz, Paul [mailto:pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 12:55 PM
To: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text

 

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.