RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU Exception Text - Revised - DIR?

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Back online 90 minutes after 2400 GMT (as promised earlier) and I
object.   Tim's text has been out for comments for far shorter time than
the other sections.  I, for one, have been too busy working on the SRSU
section and IP summary to focus on it.  

It's my understanding that there is broad support for the idea of an
SRSU exception even if there is no general agreement on the specific
iteration. JN2 have an SRSU, BRU1 has one, and (drumroll, please) IPC
and NCSG are in agreement on the need for one.  If that's not broad
support, what is?  Seriously.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:43 PM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU Exception Text - Revised - DIR?


coolio.

others?  going once...  

i'm still in heavy-edit mode, but my goal is to be done in a couple
hours.  so speak soon.  :-)

mikey


On Jul 20, 2010, at 7:36 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 
> Perfect.        
> 
> 
> Tim
> Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail using my iPad!
> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU Exception Text - Revised - DIR?
>> From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Tue, July 20, 2010 7:31 pm
>> To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> 
>> seems to me that they can get introduced as such
>> 
>> - use your language as the introduction
>> 
>> - move the more-detailed write-ups to the Annexes
>> 
>> - note that these are still in very early stages of discussion, 
>> represent an early draft from a subset of the group, and that we 
>> welcome ideas from the broader community
>> 
>> something like that work?
>> 
>> mikey
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 20, 2010, at 7:08 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> If they go in, how will it be made clear that those sections only 
>>> represent the ideas of a small subset of the WG? They did not even 
>>> exist when we did the poll! At best they are more or less minority
reports.
>>> The only general agreement that exists is for what I am proposing 
>>> goes in their place.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Tim
>>> Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail using my iPad!
>>> 
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU Exception Text - Revised - DIR?
>>>> From: Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Date: Tue, July 20, 2010 6:56 pm
>>>> To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> 
>>>> I have put some thought into it and I think it is worth including 
>>>> Kristina and Brian's summaries, even though I saw the wisdom of the

>>>> 4 points Tim eloquently stated.
>>>> 
>>>> -Jothan
>>>> 
>>>> Jothan Frakes
>>>> +1.206-355-0230 tel
>>>> +1.206-201-6881 fax
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> i know -- but at a minimum i'd like to hear from the other two
"summarizers" before proceeding that way...  Brian, Kristina, others,
what say you?
>>>>> 
>>>>> mikey
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 20, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Again, I would rather we use my suggested text to replace all 
>>>>>> three of these sections - Exceptions, SRSU, and Compliance. I 
>>>>>> believe there several others who were in agreement that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>> Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail using my iPad!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU Exception Text - Revised - DIR?
>>>>>>> From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Date: Tue, July 20, 2010 4:38 pm
>>>>>>> To: <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  Here's revised SRSU exception
>>>>>>>  text that incorporates some
>>>>>>>  (not all) of Eric's changes
>>>>>>>  and most of Jeff N.'s wording
>>>>>>>  (I tweaked it slightly by
>>>>>>>  adding /SRMU and using .brand
>>>>>>>  and .ngo).  I didn't receive
>>>>>>>  any other changes.
>>>>>>>  I've left a placeholder for
>>>>>>>  other exception text (Richard
>>>>>>>  - HINT!).  I've also left a
>>>>>>>  placeholder for text that sets
>>>>>>>  out the criticisms of SRSU.  I
>>>>>>>  think it's important to
>>>>>>>  include that - not only for
>>>>>>>  balance, but to help those who
>>>>>>>  may submit public comments.
>>>>>>>  I don't know if this is DIR,
>>>>>>>  but I have to offline until
>>>>>>>  after 2400 GMT so am sending
>>>>>>>  it along now.  (I will be back
>>>>>>>  online about 90 minutes after
>>>>>>>  2400 GMT if that helps.)
>>>>>>>  Our document comparison
>>>>>>>  software is offline so I can't
>>>>>>>  generate a redline. Apologies.
>>>>>>>  K
>>>>> 
>>>>> - - - - - - - - -
>>>>> phone   651-647-6109
>>>>> fax             866-280-2356
>>>>> web     http://www.haven2.com
>>>>> handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
>>>>> Google, etc.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>> - - - - - - - - -
>> phone        651-647-6109  
>> fax                  866-280-2356  
>> web  http://www.haven2.com
>> handle       OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
Google, etc.)

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)