RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Regarding the Nairobi Board Resolution

["Drazek, Keith" <Keith.Drazek@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Jeff, but I disagree with your assessement. The reason we're having this 
conversation is Kurt Pritz sent an email on this topic to the VIWG yesterday, 
which understandably would cause a reaction. Follow-up questions or comments to 
that email do not mean Neustar isn't interested in, or committed to, reaching a 
consensus. To be clear, we don't have frustrations to vent about the substance 
of the Board resolution, and we're on record with 2 compromise proposals that 
would allow for reasonable exceptions to it. We can continue our work on 
reaching a reasonable compromise while seeking clarification of the Staff's 
interpretation of the resolution. I don't see those as mutually exclusive, and 
I'm not sure why others would. Keith


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 1:09 PM
To: 'Milton L Mueller'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Regarding the Nairobi Board Resolution


Milton,



The reason we are having this conversation is that some players in this WG are 
trying to decide if they are negotiating from a position of strength or not. 
They are also trying to determine their BATNA (Best Alternative To A Negotiated 
Agreement).



If the Board resolution is "cleared up" and is in the favor of certain parties, 
then they have no incentive to negotiate and come to agreement, worse they 
could drag their heels forever.



The current stance by the Board to keep everyone on edge and as you stated 
"clear the table" is the right move and forces all parties to the negotiating 
table.



Maybe we just need today for people to vent their frustrations about the Board 
resolution and hopefully we can move on tomorrow with the actual consensus 
building a resolution.





Jeff Eckhaus







-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 9:10 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Regarding the Nairobi Board Resolution





I strongly agree with Avri here. We had this discussion at the outset of the 
group's formation. Some of us argued then (and Kurt Pritz has since confirmed) 
that the Board was intending to "clear the table" for the GNSO to make the 
policy. Kurt's message was a very reasonable elaboration of the position that 
many of us took months ago, which is that any specific answers to the detailed 
questions about its resolution would ensnare us in a guessing game as to which 
policy the board wants, when in fact the board is telling us to make the 
policy. Which is precisely what the GNSO is supposed to be doing!!!



Why are we having this conversation? We have issues to resolve: ownership 
limits, the role of market power in affecting structural separation, the degree 
to which separation policies undermine or promote innovation and competition -- 
let's get on with it.



--MM



> -----Original Message-----

>

> The GNSO  initiated a PDP and the Board has cleared the table of

> preconditions and has given us a free path to do what we said we were

> going to do.  We asked for it, they gave it to us.  Now that we are

> getting down to the nitty gritty of actually making compromise, we

> decide to turn our energies toward attacking the board.  This makes no

> sense to me.

>

> I would hate to see us waste this opportunity by now beginning to spend

> our energy on deciding what the Board may or may not have intended.  I

> admit Kurt's message could have been written better, but the point is

> the GNSO asked for the chance to define what went into the DAG and we

> are not getting it done.

>