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

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

Thanks for the explanation, Kristina, and, to be clear I was not
shooting arrows at you personally. [KR:  I know.  Plus, I'm a pretty
good shot myself :-)]
 
I just think that the level of detail on issues not thoroughly discussed
does not meet the standard of those issues that were.  [KR:  I disagree
that they weren't discussed.  Like I said, if there is concern about
advocacy or length, I have no problems with changing them to list them
out in skeletal form.  I've way behind on paying work and I'm not
willing to rewrite the whole section.  If there's agreement that they
should be re-written, it will be incumbent on the proponents to send me
text.]
 
For this reason I have no problem with them being in the full text of
the IPC.  [KR.  I should hope not.  I've been very surprised by the
implicit arrogance of those who thought that the IPC constituency
statement was open to edits.]
 
 


________________________________

        From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 5:05 PM
        To: Rosette, Kristina; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI WG Interim Report edits
        
        

        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.