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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the explanation, Kristina, and, to be clear I was not shooting
arrows at you personally.  I just think that the level of detail on issues
not thoroughly discussed does not meet the standard of those issues that
were.  For this reason I have no problem with them being in the full text of
the IPC.  The summaries, on the other hand, need to be details that everyone
agrees on, full stop.

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

 

  _____  

From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:56 PM
To: Ron Andruff; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI WG Interim Report edits

 

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.