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

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

I'm fine with it, too, with one suggestion, namely, adding ",in its current 
form," or similar modifier after the second use of "SRSU exception" in the 
first sentence:  "Critics of the concept of an SRSU exception note that the 
SRSU exception, in its current form, has no consistency of interpretation. . . 
."

I do think that it would be possible to develop an SRSU that would have 
consistency of interpretation, but agree that we're not there yet. The first 
sentence, as written, states that there could never be consistency of 
interpretation and that does not seem true.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 2:42 PM
To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Revised SRSU Text - critics corner


hi,

As a proponent of specific SR exceptions ( both SRSU and SRMU variants), I 
accept the addition of this stmt or one like it.

I do ask whether Kathy speaks for all critics of the concept or just some of 
the critics.  Would be impressed to find out that all the critics of SR have 
consensus on what they dislike about SR.

a.

Ps, I am consistent about allowing information into the report.  I think the 
ANNEX and Addenda should be as wide as the opinions in the group.


On 22 Jul 2010, at 14:33, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> I agree fully with Ron that the SRSU piece should be significantly 
> streamlined.
>  
> However, in the event that the text remains, then I will accept Kristina's 
> invitation at the end of the SRSU piece, namely: "Critics of the concept of 
> an SRSU exception contend that [text?]...."
>  
> ð  Critics of the concept of an SRSU exception note that the SRSU exception 
> has no consistency of interpretation and creates a danger of undermining the 
> main registry-registrar structures being proposed by many in the VI WG. In 
> particular, critics are concerned that SRSU domain names (second level) might 
> be handed out to third parties for wide-spread public use: bypassing 
> Equivalent Access, bypassing ICANN-Accredited Registrars and bypassing the 
> main purpose and reason for the Registry-Registrar separation to which DAG4, 
> RACK and JN2 proposals are dedicated. Given that well-known names (both 
> for-profit and not-for-profit) are likely to be given only to their trademark 
> owners, and given that the strong need to develop details and 
> compliance/enforcement models -- should SRSUs distribute beyond their limits 
> - those concerned in the WG felt that SRSU should not be part of the first 
> round of new gTLDs, but work for definition, consensus and introduction in a 
> latter round.
>  
> Best,
>  
> 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 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>>
>