RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] agenda for today's call

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

Yes....and then you need to take the least common denominator.  I believe the 
US has one of the lowest reporting requirements (namely owning more than 5% of 
a public company requires disclosure).  If there are lowers, I would love to 
hear that.  In the end, the 15% does not relate to control and really is in 
place to satisfy 1 existing registry operator.

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: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 1:31 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Alan Greenberg; Mike O'Connor; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] agenda for today's call

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.)