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

["Berry Cobb" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Replaced it.
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 14:53:21 
To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] OUR WG TABLE - For Final Inputs!


Yes, ma'am, we will get back to you.

BTW, is this process parallel to the evaluation process being done by the 
impartial non-proposing group, or has it replaced it.

a.

On 16 May 2010, at 14:47, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> You fill in the line, Avri, Michael, and Milton, with your words and I'll 
> insert it (just fill the line in the table, send it over, and I'll cut and 
> paste). Much better to have your language... 
> 
> One line per proposal. 
> Best,
> 
> Kathy Kleiman
> Director of Policy
> .ORG The Public Interest Registry
> Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846
> 
> Visit us online!
> Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz!
> Find us on Facebook | dotorg
> See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr
> See our video library on YouTube
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
> Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If 
> received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----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.
> 
> 
>