Re: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] partial bulk transfer terms

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

i don't have real strong feelings one way or the other.

just to make sure we're not missing something important -- Olaf, 
could you remind us of the history of this partial bulk transfer 
item?  was there a rationale that we've lost track of, that we should 
consider one last time before dropping this?   if there's nothing 
like that, i'm OK dropping this one.


At 11:13 AM 11/25/2008, Diaz, Paul wrote:

> Today's call had a lively debate on our draft scenarios for partial bulk
> transfers (PBTs).  A key concern is whether the current bulk transfer
> provisions already cover most of these scenarios and/or if the other
> cases can be addressed by existing market solutions.
>
> The WG must remain focused on its charter Issues and guard against
> product (as opposed to policy) development.  Before next Tuesday's
> (12/2) call, please provide your perspective on the following:
>
> Does the WG need to continue debating Issue III re: PBTs?
>
> If so, what distinguishes a PBT from the existing tools?  Also, how
> should PBT terms (i.e. requirements, fees, etc.) be defined?  Please
> explain.
>
> For all: Does the Initial Report's coverage of Issue III accurately
> capture your view re: PBTs?  Please explain.
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1811 - Release Date: 
> 11/25/2008 8:29 AM