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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I agree with this.  I have been very vocal on this in support of the NCSG.

Since my last encounter on this there has been a discussion of this on the NCSG 
discussion list and confirmation of at least 3-5 NGO's that are considering an 
SR application for internal purpose - i.e. for employees and members.

a.


On 22 Jul 2010, at 12:02, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> 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.)
>>  
>