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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Very true. I would say most of us on this WG aren't representing our respective 
groups.

Stéphane

Le 17 juil. 2010 à 15:33, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx a écrit :

> Even with that we need to keep in mind that many of us, like myself, are not 
> representing our SG. 
> 
> Tim
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:16:43 +0200
> 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.
>