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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

I would not make those changes to the line on what the Board's motion means as 
I now firmly believe not even the board knew what it meant. The staff will 
interpret it as they see fit, so actually, I think we should just remove the 
whole line about what the Board's proposal is.  If the Board doesn't know what 
it means, we should not be reading into what some people on this believe it 
means....and frankly a number of people on this list have said "who cares what 
the board meant."  

So please delete the whole line.  We can reinsert in a couple of weeks when the 
staff issues its vertical integration proclamation.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 8:23 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] OUR WG TABLE - For Final Inputs!


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.