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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff, must disagree with that.  The Board's resolution should be included.  I'm 
firmly convinced that the Board doesn't believe, or understand, half the stuff 
it does -- and yet there it is.  

On May 15, 2010, at 10:20 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
>