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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

The discussion goes beyond what is in the IPC recommendation and reflects what 
was discussed in the WG.

I would find removing it objectionable.

a.

On 21 Jul 2010, at 17:05, Ron Andruff wrote:

> 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:
> 
>       • 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. 
>       • With regard to the RACK+ and DAGv4 summaries, we should change the 
> numbers to bullets to maintain consistency with all of the other summaries.
>       • 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.