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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kristina, 

 

Unfortunately, your posts back are coming directly to me before they hit the
list, so some of this thread is certain to be out of order on the list.  In
any case, my responses to your comments below are noted in RED.

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

 

  _____  

From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 1:14 PM
To: Ron Andruff; gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Revised SRSU Text

 

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.] It is not right to identify supporters of
elements of a half-baked cake.  That disenfranchises others of us who are
not so far down that path and wholly biases the report.  To note that 'some'
feel this way or that, I can live with.  Naming constituencies or proposers
is unfair and does not present this interim report in the proper light.

 

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?]  To remove all reference.  If SRMU was not the
subject of much discussion why include it?  Put another way, there were lots
of things that were not the subject of much discussion that are not included
in the IR.

 

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.] The IR is intended to give Readers a sense of where we are at.  A
short summary does that.  SRSU is discussed in the BRU 1 and other sections
of the report, so this summary need only reference it in limited terms.

 

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>>