<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] agenda for today's call
- To: "Neuman,Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] agenda for today's call
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:30:41 -0700
Shouldn't other jurisdictions be considered? Not all existing
registries, and certainly not all of the new ones, will be incorporated
under US law. Same for registrars.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] agenda for today's call
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, June 07, 2010 12:12 pm
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, "Mike O'Connor"
<mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx"
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Alan,
If the Afilias proposal is adopted, then there is no reason for 15% and
should rather should be 5% (since that is the minimum that is required
to be disclosed under US Corporate law).
I don't think the Afilias proposal should be adopted, but if it were, it
should be 5% and not 15%.
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 Alan Greenberg
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 12:59 PM
To: Mike O'Connor; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] agenda for today's call
I wonder if there is one other thing we can consider giving the time
left before Brussels?
Although the "mosaic" argument has been made regarding separating
issues (and I have used it myself on several occasions), perhaps
there is one important exception.
According to the table, the IPC proposal is the only one supporting
0% (or perhaps the 2% Board option). All others are at least 15%. Is
it possible that we can come to closure on this one point -
specifically to raise the zero/2% to 15%? It does not preclude
anything else as far as I read the proposals.
Alan
At 07/06/2010 12:19 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>hi all,
>
>a pretty simple agenda -- more of a conversation-starter than anything else.
>
>-- Review agenda -- 5 minutes
>-- Roll call
>-- review the updated proposal-comparison table -- 20 minutes
>-- review the early-draft list of Harms -- 20 minutes
>-- review the draft list of Definitions -- 20 minutes
>-- other business -- 20 minutes
>
>i'll send copies of the three documents to the list as separate
>emails in a second.
>
>mikey
>
>
>- - - - - - - - -
>phone 651-647-6109
>fax 866-280-2356
>web www.haven2.com
>handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|