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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The problem is many members of this group do not know their status. Some may be 
excluded from applying, some may not be thinking of applying now but could 
change their mind if the rules change. Lot of uncertainty.

So if we need to update our SOI or identify our status can you please update 
mine to – TBD


Thanks

Jeff Eckhaus

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 1:24 PM
To: 'icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text

Point of order.....

In addition to SG, what is more important to identify are those that are 
applying for, or advising applicants, for new gtlds. This WG is unique in that 
respect. While normally you may be considered a BC rep, often your answers are 
as an advisor to new gtld reps. All of that is great, but just need to make 
everything clear.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri Jul 16 14:34:31 2010
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
Roberto,

It is critically important to identify SG affiliation when discussing poll 
results – or any other method of measuring consensus -- from a WG.  This is 
because WG’s are usually heavily weighted with contract party representatives, 
who often outnumber non-contract party representatives.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 10:50 AM
To: 'Milton L Mueller'; jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx; krosette@xxxxxxx; 
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx; mike@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text

I am wondering whether, in light of the revised way the "new" GNSO should work, 
support from SGs is appropriate in a WG report.
This will come out, without any doubt, in the Council discussion, but one of 
the things we were trying to do in the GNSO Review was to separate the 
consensus processes in WGs from the votes in the Council.

Just my opinion.
Actually, this does not mean that the WG should not note support, but not make 
it a matter of SGs.

Roberto


________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Friday, 16 July 2010 17:50
To: jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx; krosette@xxxxxxx; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx; 
mike@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
If so, support of NCSG members for SR/MU should be noted in the report. The 
combination of CSG and NCSG indicates an important level of support among GNSO 
user representatives, even if it does not constitute consensus.

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx

I also think that SRMU is a case we pretty much rejected as too difficult to 
define without risking gaming and abuse. So the the emphasis should definitely 
be on the SRSU.


________________________________
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. 
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and 
then delete it from your system. Thank you.