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

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

[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.  [KR:  You're disenfranchised
because you're not identified as supporting or proposing an SRSU
exception?  Really?  How?]

  

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.

[KR:  If Avri, Milton, Jeff and Richard are fine with removing reference
to SRMU, explicitly or implicitly, I'll go along with that.]

 

 

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.

[KR:  You've made my point.  Unless there is more detail here (and,
really, a sentence is too much?), readers won't know to where to look in
the rest of the report for references to/discussions of SRSU.]

 

 


________________________________

        From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 1:29 PM
        To: Rosette, Kristina; gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Revised SRSU Text
        
        

        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>>