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

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

Having just checked the charter for the WG, I see that we are indeed operating 
under the new draft procedures.

S.

Le 17 juil. 2010 à 23:07, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :

> 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.
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>