RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Revised SRSU Text

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

Ron,
 
There is no need to detail which constituencies proposed what and which
proposal supported, etc., etc. 
[KR:  I completely disagree.  The detail is important b/c it not only
highlights the variances but also identifies the supporters, which is
important contextual information.  I think this is especially important
for the .ngo exception type, which was not the subject of a formal
proposal, but has been mentioned repeatedly in the WG. See also Avri's
recent message about the interest in it.]
 
Moreover, SRMU has not had nearly enough discussion to warrant inclusion
in this report.  
[KR. Footnotes 1 and 2 say that SRMU was not the subject of much
discussion. What more do you want?]
 
That is all this section needs to say.  
[KR.  Given that we have a 120+ page report, I disagree. Without a
summary here, there's no sign post for people interested in commenting
on an SRSU exception - for or against - to know where to look in the
rest of the report.]
 
K
 
 
 
 


________________________________

        From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 1:06 PM
        To: Rosette, Kristina; gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Revised SRSU Text
        
        

        Kristina,

         

        With respect for your efforts, the entire section is vastly
overly detailed and does not fly.  There is no need to detail which
constituencies proposed what and which proposal supported, etc., etc.
Moreover, SRMU has not had nearly enough discussion to warrant inclusion
in this report.  The point of SRSU that we all agree on is that the
majority of this WG believes that there is possibility for consensus (of
some kind) at some point in the future.  That is all this section needs
to say.

         

        Thanks,

         

        RA

         

        Ronald N. Andruff

        President

         

        RNA Partners, Inc.

        220 Fifth Avenue

        New York, New York 10001

        + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

         

        
________________________________


        From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
        Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:27 PM
        To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Revised SRSU Text

         

        All, 

        I've attached a clean copy of further revised SRSU text that I
think (and hope) addresses the concerns raised and reflects input by
several WG members that had been deleted in the current IR text.
[Richard, I summarized your BRU1 text b/c everyone else had 1 sentence
and BRU1 was two paragraphs.]  I *do not* copy it below because doing so
drops the footnotes.

        I have also attached two comparisons.  One is a comparison of
the "new" clean text against the text that's currently in the Initial
Report (the "current IR SRSU redline"). The other comparison is of the
new "clean" text against what was submitted on Wednesday afternoon
("07212010 IR SRSU redline").

        Please let me know if you have questions.  

        K 

         

        <<07212010 IR SRSU redline.DOC>> <<Current IR SRSU redline.DOC>>
<<KR changes to IR SRSU text.DOC>>