[gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Recommendation: Eliminate Section 4 of the Initial Report

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I do think that our one interface with people who actually have expertise on 
vertical integration issues deserves some special consideration. No problem 
with including the critical questions a la Kathy as long as we are impartial 
and nondiscriminatory in the questions we include.

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 3:33 PM
To: Milton L Mueller; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Recommendation: Eliminate Section 4 of the Initial Report

If we include, which I do NOT recommend, it should be in background, but should 
not be called out in its own section and should not purport to state facts.  In 
addition, it should include everything including all of the questions raised 
(including by other economists) and should include the flaws exposed during 
that call.  Milton, we have been meeting 2X per week for how many weeks at 1.5 
to 2 hours per pop.  2500+ e-mails, etc....
I don't think 1 60 minute conversation should get that much attention that it 
is called out in a separate section.

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.


From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 3:29 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Recommendation: Eliminate Section 4 of the Initial Report

I normally agree with Jeff N. on procedural issues but in this case I don't .
We did have an extensive, 60+ minute discussion with Salop and Wright and we 
did debate their ideas on the list and this section should be included.
--MM


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 3:05 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Recommendation: Eliminate Section 4 of the Initial 
Report

All,

In reading the Initial Report, I couldn't help but feel that the inclusion of 
Section 4 is inappropriate.  Not only is it inaccurate to state that we 
evaluated the Salop report, we in actuality never really discussed it.  We had 
1 call with the economists and there was such large disagreement with many of 
the statements made by the economists.  In addition, there were several points 
the economists made that were not in the initial report at all; Namely that 
requiring the use of registrars at all is economically inefficient.

My point is not to debate the above, but to recommend we delete the section.  
It improperly gives too much attention to a report we did not really consider.  
It may be staff's position, but it is not the view of the WG and therefore 
needs to go.

Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
________________________________
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.