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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

I don't agree with the misrepresentation that SRSU is only one constituency's 
view (I presume by that you are thinking the IPC). There are several other 
members of the group who agree with the SRSU exception.

Stéphane

Le 22 juil. 2010 à 17:19, Kathy Kleiman a écrit :

> 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!
> Find us on Facebook | dotorg
> See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr
> See our video library on YouTube
>  
> 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.)
>