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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1 Agree with SRSU, but not with the IPC interpretation of it in IR summary.

RA


Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.

 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jean Christophe VIGNES
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:25 PM
To: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH; Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Kathy Kleiman; Neuman, Jeff; Mike O'Connor; krosette@xxxxxxx;
gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text

+1 

Le 22/07/10 18:21, « Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH »
<vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

  Hi Stéphane, very true. I agree with SRSU, but not with the IPC
interpretation of it.

 Volker

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! <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 <mailto:%27mike@xxxxxxxxxx> '; 'krosette@xxxxxxx
<mailto:%27krosette@xxxxxxx> '
 Cc: 'gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:%27gnso-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.)























______________________
Jean-Christophe Vignes

Executive Vice-President & General Counsel
DCL Group
2, rue Léon Laval
L-3372 Leudelange

Tel.:  +352  20 200 123
Mobile : +352 691 600 424
Fax.:   +352 20 300 123
Mailto: JCVignes@xxxxxxxxxxx

www.datacenter.eu   | www.eurodns.com   | www.voipgate.com

________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have
received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and
delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its
contents to anyone.

Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

--------------------------------------------------------