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

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

Kathy,
 
I've just read the SRSU text as it appears in the  Initial Report.  It
doesn't include large parts of what I submitted and omitted some of
Jeff's edits that I had accepted.  I'm doing a revision now and will
circulate in clean and redline form.  
 
K


________________________________

        From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kKleiman@xxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:20 AM
        To: Neuman, Jeff; mike@xxxxxxxxxx; Rosette, Kristina
        Cc: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
        
        

        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.)