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

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

Eric,

I don't disagree with the principles you are putting forward. However, I was 
not aware that any GNSO WG was already set-up under the restructure rules, as 
these have not been ratified by the Council yet.

Therefore it is my understanding that these rules do not apply to this WG, but 
I may be wrong on this and if so, I apologize in advance.

Stéphane

Le 17 juil. 2010 à 16:27, Eric Brunner-Williams a écrit :

> 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.
>>> 
>> 
> 
>