Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Record of SG breakdown.

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

That solves the problem for me, Jeff. 
RA 

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:56:13 
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Record of SG breakdown.

I assumed we would have a list of the WG members and their affiliation 
somewhere in the report. Similar to what Gisella sends out when listing the 
participants. I agree with Ron on the transparency and believe this would cover 
it.

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 1:47 PM
To: Diaz, Paul; owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Record of SG breakdown.

In the interest of transparency, Paul, we must document that kind of 
information. Even though Roberto noted support will be apparent when the GNSO 
Council gets its turn, we need to document and preserve every facet of our work 
- Including the makeup of the those taking the poll.

RA

________________________________________
Ron Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.com>

________________________________
From: "Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:55:24 -0400
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<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.rnapartners.com<http://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.


________________________________
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. 
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and 
then delete it from your system. Thank you.