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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

i agree there is good support for the SRSU concept

RT


On Jul 20, 2010, at 6:37 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

> 
> 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.)
> 
> 
>