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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think we can all agree that SRSU was discussed and that there are a
significant number of the WG that agree it merits further discussion.  

Passed that I don't understand how one constituency (ISP) feels that it
should have a position equal to all other individual members within this
working group?

Moreover there is NO support for SRMU and for this reason it should not even
be mentioned in the Initial Report, in my view.  Specifically, I take issue
with this paragraph:

< Types of SRSU exceptions. As discussed further below, several types of
SRSUs were proposed by constituencies, stakeholder groups, and WG members.
The Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) proposed an SRSU and SRMU
exception for a registry for which the gTLD string is an identical match to
the registry?s trademark/service mark (a ?.brand? registry) and that
satisfied additional criteria that the IPC intended to limit the
applicability of the exceptions and to discourage abuse and gaming of the
exceptions.    Several WG participants who are members of the Non-Commercial
Stakeholders Group proposed an SRSU exception for non-governmental
organization registries (NGOs) (referred to as .ngo registry) in case where
a specific membership organization could be identified and the string
corresponded to the NGO?s name and also proposed an SRSU exception for
cultural, linguistic or non profit organizations.  And still other
proposals, such as JN2, proposed an SRSU/SRMU exception for any entity that
could meet strict use requirements where the only user of the second-level
names is the registry itself, its employees, agents and subcontractors,
regardless of whether the registry is a .brand or .ngo.  >

That is why I support Tim's approach.  That is, to provide factual
information only and not promote one constituency's POV.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:48 AM
To: Volker Greimann
Cc: Richard Tindal; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU Exception Text - Revised - DIR?


Good point Volker.

I believe exceptions need to be exempt from all three scenarios you
describe. That is my read of what the WG has discussed and theorized.

Stéphane

Le 21 juil. 2010 à 15:40, Volker Greimann a écrit :

> 
> I do as well, but I am unsure if we all agree on the intent of the
direction:
> 
> As I see it, there is the following main subdefinitions of exceptions:
> 
> a) SRSU as an exception to equal registrar access
> b) SRSU as an exception to registrar-registry co-ownership
> c) SRSU as an exception to registrar ability to act as RSP.
> 
> The acceptance of the different forms of exception depends largeliy on the
basic outlook on VI/CO favored by the WG-member. It also depends largely on
the definition of SRSU, and what forms of domain names will be allowable
under said exception. For example, I favor a very narrow definition of SRSU,
allowing no form of distribution of individual domain names, while others
consider distribution amongst "members" affiliates, or franchisees as
acceptable.
> 
> Volker
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 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.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
> 
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> 
> Volker A. Greimann
> - Rechtsabteilung -
> 
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
> 
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> www.key-systems.net/facebook
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
> 
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
> 
> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen
Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder
Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese
Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per
E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> 
> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact
us.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Volker A. Greimann
> - legal department -
> 
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
> 
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
> www.key-systems.net/facebook
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
> 
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> Registration No.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
> 
> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it
is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify
the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
> 
> 
> 
>