<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI WG Interim Report edits
- To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI WG Interim Report edits
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:10:10 -0400
Hi,
I can live with this but do suggest one change.
in the second paragraph
s/agreement/the focus of the discussions/
a.
On 21 Jul 2010, at 18:47, Ron Andruff wrote:
> 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:
>
> • 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.
> <Types of SRSU exceptions (RA).doc>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|