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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 16 May 2010, at 08:47, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Avri, your "no means no" is a little simplistic in this example

Please forgive my simplicity I try to keep up.

But perhaps it is not as simplistic as you think though the statement may be 
appear simple on the surface

For all your questions, it means no matter how you try to cut it, redefine it, 
or repackage it or reinterpret it, the answer is a consistent NO.

but what if she ... NO
but what if i thought ... NO
but how about if ... NO
but i was  ... NO

No Cross-ownership with strict separation. Period.

You are right, I did not think we should be trying to decide what the Board 
meant.  We only need to read their words and apply them consistently and 
without flinching or gaming.

>  Now I am saying it is a waste of our time for us to define what they meant.  
> Staff will do that for all f us in a couple of weeks.

And yes, we will have to deal with the Staff's interpretation, and if they find 
a way to have it mean anything then what it says NO CROSS-OWNERSHIP and STRICT 
SEPARATION then I for one will be arguing that they have once again decided to 
substitute their own policy making wisdom for the policy making of the Board 
and SOs. 

Of course I have but one simplistic voice that need not be listened to (in fact 
I understand there are already people who see my name on email and ignore it 
out of principle)

> If it is included (which I strongly oppose), then it needs to be their exact 
> words and not anyone's interpretation of it. 

I am fine with removing it, and I am fine with including:

No Cross-ownership and Strict Separation 

in each of the boxes that either have 0 in them or that I recommend have 0 in 
them.  I see them as equivalent statements and thus linguistic substitutions.

> 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).

Again I must beg to differ, and perhaps I am being simple again.  They were 
given a chance, and they, rightly in my mind, decided not to interpret further. 
 The same holds true for any of the options we have proposed.  We have been 
offered the chance to correct our table entires, and if we don't do so, then 
the best understanding of those making up the table gets to stand.  Or are you 
suggesting that we remove the row of anyone who does not respond?

Seems the same to me.

a.