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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I view the compliance piece in exactly the same light.  


On Jul 22, 2010, at 8:19 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> 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.)
>