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

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

If it is included (which I strongly oppose), then it needs to be their exact 
words and not anyone's interpretation of it.  Avri has recommended adding her 
interpretation, and Kathy inserted hers.  Not to discredit any of their 
interpretations (as one of them may or may not be right), the simple truth is 
we do not know.  Would have been nice for the staff writing the DAG 4 draft to 
do this is the chart, but the chance of that as we know is close to zero before 
they release it in DAG 4.

Its funny actually that each of the proponents are being asked to fill in and 
check the charts....that is all except for the Board (if we keep their line in).

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sat May 15 23:20:29 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] OUR WG TABLE - For Final Inputs!


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.
> 
> 
> 
>