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

["jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx" <jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx>]

Aq
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent:  21.07.2010, 13:14
To: Phil Buckingham
Cc: Rosette, Kristina; Mike O'Connor; gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU Exception Text - Revised - DIR?


Agree.
And also agree there is broad support for the SRSU exception from this group.

Stéphane

Le 21 juil. 2010 à 11:50, Phil Buckingham a écrit :

>
> Hi Kristina,
>
> The morning after in Europe , so I have no idea what was finally put out  by 
> " the Americans "
> I equally object to the tactic of trying to push something through at the 
> last minute , without the ability to comment , as us Europeans are in bed !
>
> This SRSU exception has been flogged to death, IMO and there IS broad support.
>
> Great job BTW ,
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
> To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 2:37 AM
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU Exception Text - Revised - DIR?
>
>
>>
>> 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.)
>>
>>
>>