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

[tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]

I think the right way to address this is to be sure our SOIs are accurate and 
complete as Eric suggests.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:42:39 
To: Neuman, Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'<icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text

SGs have powerful rights within the ICANN community, which *potential* 
registries or RSPs do not have.  Such rights include a say in appointing Board 
members and a right to appoint members of the GNSO council.   

If the EOI program had been approved, who was applying for what would now be 
clear. As it is, I don't think you can compel anyone to state if they are 
applying for a new gTLD or if they plan to be an RSP either.  Nor could you 
have any basis for believing them if they did say so.   Any speculation as to 
who is going to do what in the future is just that -- speculation.

Your point of order is out of order. 

Antony  


On Jul 16, 2010, at 1:24 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
>  
> 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.
>