Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] OUR WG TABLE - For Final Inputs!

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Kathy,

Re MMA - what you there reflects the first MMA but not the update.

in the second the initial Cross ownership was 0 with the possibility to request 
more.

(i am sure the M&Ms will correct me if i am wrong.)

And we were working on a third update to reflect the comments we had gotten, 
but it sounds like it is getting a bit late for any more input and we have not 
reached consensus on it ourselves yet.



also on the Board's line:

as i read the motion:

>> there will be strict separation of entities offering registry services and 
>> those acting as registrar.  No co-ownership will be allowed.


i think the Board row should read:


0=0  as  RSPs offer Registry services
P=0  as  RSPs offer Registry services

Incidentally if we wish to add extra columns for control as well as just CO  - 
since  strict separation covers control as well as cross-ownership - those 
would be 0 as well in the Board motion - and i expect in MMA as the starting 
point as well.

Q=yes if it is acting as a registrar (this one has some wiggle room since they 
don't always act as registrars)

R=n/a

I wasn't going to get into the game of 'what's your interpretation'  but since 
we are putting it into a table, I figured i should indicate how I saw it since 
it seems to differ from what is there.

a.