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

[tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Even with that we need to keep in mind that many of us, like myself, are not 
representing our SG. 

Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:16:43 
To: Jeff Eckhaus<eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Record of SG breakdown.

Agreed, and factually correct AFAIK.

There is a list of WG participants by affiliation. This should be included in 
the report.

Why would we need to do more?

Stéphane

Le 16 juil. 2010 à 22:56, Jeff Eckhaus a écrit :

> 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
> 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
> 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
>  
> 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.