RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI WG Interim Report edits
Here is an alternative to what is currently posted. Not sure if the redline version will show on the mailing list, so I have attached it to this mail. Types of SRSU exceptions. As discussed further below, several types of SRSUs were proposed in the public comments by constituencies and stakeholder groups, as well as 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 intended to limit the applicability of the exceptions and to discourage abuse and gaming of the exceptions. Other WG participants proposed an SRSU exception for non-governmental organization registries (NGOs) (referred to as .ngo registry) in cases where a specific membership organization could be identified and the string corresponded to the NGO's name. An SRSU exception for cultural, linguistic or non profit organizations was also proposed. And still others proposed an SRSU exception for any entity that could meet strict use requirements where the only user of the second-level names is the registry itself. However, due to the compressed time frame under which the VI Working Group is working, agreement has so far centered around an SRSU where second level names can only be registered to the registry (i.e. the registry is the registrant for all names). A majority of the Working Group feel that more time to work on this type of exception may find consensus. Very little, if any, time was devoted to discussion about any other type of single registrant exception as noted above. Thanks, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 5:23 PM To: Ron Andruff; 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. [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. Attachment:
Types of SRSU exceptions (RA).doc
|