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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim,

Alternatively, the effect of registrar holding more than 5% in Afilias
is the desired outcome.

Eric

On 6/7/10 1:30 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
> 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.)
> 
> 
> 
>