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

["Austin, Scott" <SAustin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mikey et al.
 
I agree with Milton''s comment (and Jeff's) that as much as there are
very few "expert" documents that are being referenced, and to the
uninitiated "vertical integration" is all about economics (as opposed to
politics, stakeholders, unique aspects of Internet business operations
and multigeographical and multidimensional "markets") the pro and con of
those analyses should be included if possible, to keep perspective and
avoid undue reliance upon them, as much as the authors may be quite
respected and competent (or not) both on and off the list.
 
Scott
 
Scott R. Austin
Roetzel & Andress, P.A.
350 East Las Olas Boulevard 
Las Olas Centre II, Suite 1150 
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 
Direct Phone No.: 954-759-2768
Main Phone No: 954-462-4150
Fax No.: 954-462-4260
Email: saustin@xxxxxxxxx
www.ralaw.com
<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/saustin/Application%20Data/Micros
oft/Signatures/www.ralaw.com>  


Both Scott R. Austin and Roetzel & Andress intend that this message be
used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please permanently dispose of the original message and notify
Scott Austin immediately at 954.759.2768. Thank you.


________________________________

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 3:35 PM
To: 'Neuman, Jeff'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Recommendation: Eliminate Section 4 of the
Initial Report



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.

 


Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment 
hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, to (1)
avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or 
(2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or 
matter.  This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. 
Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.