RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text

["Kathy Kleiman" <kKleiman@xxxxxxx>]

I have agree strongly with Jeff on this. The SRSU section remains a shock to 
me: dramatically different than Compliance and Exceptions, and very much an 
education and advocacy piece for one constituency’s views. 

 

As we discussed last week, I think SRMU needs to be removed completely as being 
not representative at all of the discussion or direction of the WG (and 
misrepresentative of our WG work and conclusions by being included). The rest 
needs to be balanced, fair and neutral. If the proposal summaries cannot be 
advocacy piece, then how much more so the issues pieces which will be viewed as 
coming from the entire WG!

 

IPC has a strong place to raise of all its issues – it has one of the valued 
proposal slots in the Annex. That’s where the attention of the readers, and 
comment action, should be. That’s where these types of proposal details are 
being fleshed out. There is ample room there, in the IPC Proposal, for many of 
the SRSU (and not SRSU) issues now included in this SRSU draft text.

 

I’ll wait to see Jeff’s rewrite, and respond further. But please count this as 
a vote for changing the SRSU as drafted.

 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

.ORG The Public Interest Registry

Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846

 

Visit us online!

Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! <http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> 

Find us on Facebook | dotorg 
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/dotorg/203294399456?v=wall> 

See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> 

See our video library on YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> 

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:

Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If 
received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:47 AM
To: 'mike@xxxxxxxxxx'; 'krosette@xxxxxxx'
Cc: 'gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text

 

Mikey - how long do we have to comment on Kristina's text. I believe the text 
is way too detailed for what this group should put out in an initial report and 
purports to show endorsement of the IPC implementation of not only SRSU, but 
also SRMU, which was hardly the case.

I will be providing me edits as quickly as I can, but we cannot rush this. I 
find it amazing that new things were added to the report as a whole in less 
than 24 hours before submission.

As previously stated, let's define SRSU as a concept in the body of the report, 
but the specific implementation (like eligibility requirements, etc.) needs to 
be pushed back to an appendix under the IPC proposal. Just because 1 proponent 
of the SRSU had a requirement that the SRSU could not be from a party whose 
primary business is that of a registry, registrar, reseller, etc. Does NOT mean 
this was endorsed in any way by the group. 
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Vice President, Law & Policy 
NeuStar, Inc. 
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx 

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
To: Rosette, Kristina <krosette@xxxxxxx> 
Cc: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Fri Jul 16 01:38:33 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text 

Woohoo!  

 

way to go Kristina.  your timing is perfect.  i was just looking wistfully at 
that section of the report and hoping to find a new draft when i opened email.  

 

thanks!

 

mikey

 

 

On Jul 16, 2010, at 12:08 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:





All, 

Here's revised SRSU draft text.  In the interests of time, I am sending this to 
the list even though Milton and Avri have not had a chance to review it.  It's 
subject to any changes they may have.

I've also included, for completeness, reference to the SRMU exception that the 
IPC proposed. 

One section I have not included is the level of support.  Milton and I both 
believe that there may be consensus support for the SRSU exception among the 
non-contracted party house members of the WG.  If we could determine that on 
the list (as opposed to on the call), I can add the relevant text.

K 

<<07162010 SR Initial Report text.DOC>> 

<07162010 SR Initial Report text.DOC>

 

- - - - - - - - -

phone        651-647-6109  

fax                                  866-280-2356  

web            http://www.haven2.com

handle       OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, 
etc.)