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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Under the Reform, the composition of PDP Working Groups is by offer to 
volunteer, without any condition upon representation as a volunteer of 
a stakeholder body with representation on the Names Council, or the 
converse for that matter.
Parties with distinct non-volunteer responsibilities, other than 
Staff, are the Liaison to the Names Council, and any other Liaisons, 
and the chair (in this case, the co-chairs). The Chair and Vice-Chair 
of the Names Council also have distinct non-volunteer responsibilities.
Rather than non-representation of a SG being an exception from 
expectations, representation of an SG by a volunteer should be an 
exception.
Eric

On 7/17/10 10:06 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> I would agree with that.
> 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*: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc*: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>;
> Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Sent*: Sat Jul 17 09:49:38 2010
> *Subject*: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Record of SG breakdown.
>
> 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 <mailto: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
> > <mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>
> > *Sender: * owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> > *Date: *Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:16:43 +0200
> > *To: *Jeff Eckhaus<eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> > *Cc: *Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto: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>
> > > [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
> > > <mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > <mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> > > <mailto: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
> > > <mailto:pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> > > *Sender: *owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> > > <mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > *Date: *Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:55:24 -0400
> > > *To: *<randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>;
> > > <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>;
> > > <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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>
> > > [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Ron Andruff
> > > *Sent:* Friday, July 16, 2010 3:14 PM
> > > *To:* icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> > > Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
> > > <mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> > > *Sender: *owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> > > <mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > *Date: *Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:34:31 -0700
> > > *To: *<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>>
> > > *ReplyTo: *<icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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>
> > > [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.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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.