RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI WG Interim Report edits

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

The purpose of that paragraph is to waive a flag at readers to say "Hey,
there are several proposed SRSU iterations from a variety of sources,
we've included a sentence about each one here, but you need to read the
stuff in the annexes."  I think that's important to have if we actually
want comment on SRSU.  (If we don't, that's a whole other thread.)  
 
I don't have an issue with editing the sentences or simply having a
short bullet about each.  I also don't have an issue with including text
about why those who object to an SRSU exception do so.  I've noted that
for at least a week, and nothing was suggested.
 
 


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
        Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:50 PM
        To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI WG Interim Report edits
        
        

        Dear WG members,

         

        Having read through the entire Interim Report draft, I would say
that we have developed a fairly balanced statement of work to date and
provide a wealth of background material for all interested parties.  A
great effort and nod to all of us, in my view!

         

        There are a couple of minor typographical changes I would
recommend we amend, as follows:

         

        1.      The typo changes are found on line 249, where we state
that there have been 2600 email exchanges.  With this flurry over the
last few days, I would suspect a more correct number is 3,000.  
        2.      With regard to the RACK+ and DAGv4 summaries, we should
change the numbers to bullets to maintain consistency with all of the
other summaries. 
        3.      The chart on lines 689/690 seems redundant, with the
Poll Graph noted previously (in any case, it is blank...). 

         

        The more import issue that needs correction is something that I
recommended on the list earlier today that we delete, and I am making
that recommendation here again.  It is the paragraph below (lines
641-654):

        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.[1]  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.  [Placeholder for other SRSU
text - from Richard, anyone else?]

        In my view, the WG is not nearly far enough down the road on
SRMU, neither did we discuss the IPC proposal in any detail, so why is
the IPC proposal noted in this summary?  NGO's, for example, only showed
up in a few posts over these last days, since it was introduced some
months ago.  And the detail about the NCSG proposing, is also not
germaine to the discussions I was part of.  We never spoke about that at
all.  The summary section is also not the place to juxtapose one
proposal over another to try to demonstrate some area of consensus
between two proposals.

         

        Fine to find all of this language in the IPC proposal in the
addenda, but NOT FINE to have it up front in the summary.  The entire
paragraph is simply not misleading.

         

        Kind regards,

         

        RA

         

        Ronald N. Andruff

        RNA Partners, Inc.

         

         

         


________________________________

        [1] See Annex __ at pages __- ____ for the IPC's Constituency
Statement.