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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that there "good support for the SRSU concept". Those are the exact 
words I would use. The concept is intriguing but as many have noted past the 
concept stage it gets very tricky.



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue Jul 20 18:43:29 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU Exception Text - Revised - DIR?


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.)
>
>
>


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.