<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
- To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:51:32 -0400
The interests of a PDP WG's volunteers precede the outcome of the
policy development activity. It is incumbent upon each person who
accepts the responsibilities of volunteering for a policy development
process working group to accurately and completely state their interests.
Eric
On 7/17/10 8:14 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Yes, but as Jeff E. points out, how can you know where you stand
before even knowing what the final rules are and if you would even be
allowed to apply, or be involved in a TLD application?
Stéphane
Le 17 juil. 2010 à 00:45, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> a
écrit :
I think the right way to address this is to be sure our SOIs are
accurate and complete as Eric suggests.
Tim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: * Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
*Sender: * owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
*Date: *Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:42:39 -0700
*To: *Neuman, Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
*Cc: *'icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:'icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>'<icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>'<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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 <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*From*: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
<owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>>
*To*: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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>
[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
<mailto:jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx>; krosette@xxxxxxx
<mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx>; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>; mike@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
*Cc:* Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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>
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller
*Sent:* Friday, 16 July 2010 17:50
*To:* jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx>;
krosette@xxxxxxx <mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx>; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>; mike@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
*Cc:* Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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>
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of
*jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|