[gnso-vi-feb10] Please Read Salop and Wright summary in new 2.2 (was re: process)

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

I have been pretty silent in this thread, but now feel I need to weigh in.  I 
drafted a summary to be put into 2.2 on Salop and Wright.  It was subsequently 
edited by a couple of people (mostly for grammar).  

Can you all please read that and comment?  I believe it gives an accurate yet 
objective summary of the S&W report and discussion and also stays true to what 
we as a group reflected in the discussion yesterday.

I just don't understand why people are discussing minority reports to language 
they have not even read.  If you still don't like the language, but others do, 
then by all means write the minority report and put it in there.  I really 
don't like to be accused of trying to suppress speech before people actually 
read what has been written.  And if you still believe what I have written has 
suppressed speech, then please as a courtesy let me know.

Thanks.

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 Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:15 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] process


Hi,

I want to endorse this.  I have no objection to the opinions of others being 
attached to this.  If people want to present an argument on why market power is 
irrelevant in relation to consumer harm, please make the case, but do not 
suppress the arguments of experts who think it is relevant.  It would have been 
interesting to have heard this argument before the last minute though.

I will note that I was also somewhat dissatisfied with the answers we got from 
them in that they did not really take on my question about market power 
globally versus locally .  Nonetheless the analysis they gave was important, 
both in itself and partly because some embraced it and some rejected it, and 
should be included in the annex in detail not just with a contentless note 
indicating it happened and received mixed opinions.

Personally I also regret that CRA or other experts were never invited, and 
would have supported those who now use this as an excuse for suppressing 
content they disagree with, if only they had made the request at the 
appropriate time.

a.

On 20 Jul 2010, at 07:52, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 
> I stand corrected.
> May I reword it as the following:
> "Even if the majority would consider crap the [economist] report, it would
> have full right to think and write so (although I would welcome a gentler
> term in the WG report), but it would not have the right to eliminate the
> fact that the [economist] report was produced, presented and discussed".
> Cheers,
> R.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeff Eckhaus [mailto:eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, 20 July 2010 03:26
>> To: 'roberto@xxxxxxxxx'; 'michael@xxxxxxxxxx'; 'tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx'
>> Cc: 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] process
>> 
>> I also agree with the approach, but do question the idea that 
>> "the majority believe the economist report was crap".
>> If that was a joke or I am missing something than I apologize 
>> in advance
>> 
>> Jeff Eckhaus
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: 'Michael Palage' <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>; 
>> tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Mon Jul 19 15:32:22 2010
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] process
>> 
>> 
>> I have no problems with minority reports. But I also believe 
>> that they have a very specific purpose: to show existing 
>> positions that are different from the views expressed by the majority.
>> I would challenge the concept of producing personal 
>> contributions on something, and smuggle it into the report as 
>> "minority view". Of course, I am not suggesting that this is 
>> the intention of Avri (or anybody else), I am just showing 
>> where this discussion could lead us if we go to the extreme 
>> cases of "principle" about proliferation of minority reports.
>> As such, I would consider fair to anticipate to the co-chairs 
>> (if not to the whole group) what the scope of the minority 
>> view is, and it is the duty of the co-chairs to check whether 
>> there is a possibility to reconcile views.
>> While I wait to have more details on the procedural and 
>> substantial matters that forced Avri to take her current 
>> position, I make the assumption that great part of the 
>> problem is the decision on the management of the economist 
>> report. I have already stated in the call that, IMHO, this is 
>> not a matter that can be decided with a majority vote, and 
>> even less with an informal straw poll on the participants of 
>> a single teleconference. I would strongly recommend members 
>> to consider that one thing is the fact that a report has been 
>> provided, presented during a teleconference and discussed, 
>> and the other is the opinion of the majority about the 
>> contents and value of the report. The majority has full right 
>> to consider crap the [economist] report (although I would 
>> welcome a gentler term in the WG report), but has not the 
>> right to eliminate the fact that the [economist] report was 
>> produced, presented and discussed.
>> My question to the people who oppose the [economist] report 
>> is: "What would be the harm in providing the report as annex, 
>> while in the text we indicate that the WG has a majority 
>> against the report?".
>> I confess that I don't understand why this solution could not 
>> be acceptable.
>> Actually, if I were against a specific position paper, I 
>> would much prefer to have the paper documented somewhere, 
>> with a statement that it was rejected, rather than to omit it 
>> altogether. In this latter case the WG could be accused later 
>> on of having disregarded evidence, while in the former case 
>> the WG clearly documented that it accepted and considered 
>> evidence, but came to a different conclusion. In one case it 
>> is a procedural fault, to be condemned, in the other case a 
>> judgement call, to be accepted.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Roberto
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Palage
>>> Sent: Monday, 19 July 2010 21:45
>>> To: <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] process
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Tom,
>>> 
>>> I believe the PDP specifically calls for the inclusion of minority 
>>> reports.
>>> 
>>> So your basis for exluding minority reports seems to be we 
>> rushed the 
>>> process to fast that there was not meaningful time for comments in 
>>> connection with both major and minor viewpoints.
>>> 
>>> Somehow I fail to see how this "process" complies with the 
>> obligations 
>>> set forth in the Affirmation of Commitments.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:00 PM, "Thomas Barrett - EnCirca"
>>> <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx  > wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I too have issues that I don't want to disclose until its
>>> too late for
>>>> anyone to respond.
>>>> 
>>>> Can we all submit minority reports?
>>>> 
>>>> Tom
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi- 
>>>> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 2:40 PM
>>>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] process
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I have asked to include a minority report as part of the overall 
>>>> report.
>>>> That will detail the issues.
>>>> 
>>>> a.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 19 Jul 2010, at 14:32, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Avri,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can you please provide us with a little bit more detail on the 
>>>>> issues you
>>>> have?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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 Avri Doria
>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 2:03 PM
>>>>> To: Mike O'Connor; Roberto Gaetano
>>>>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] process
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just to let you know, I have dropped off the phone call in
>>> response
>>>>> to
>>>> what I believe is a circus that cannot producte a 
>> meaningful report.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I will be protesting the legitimacy of the report and its 
>>>>> conclusions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> a.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any 
>> attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or 
>> inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. Any 
>> distribution or use of this communication by anyone other 
>> than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may 
>> be unlawful.  If you are not the intended recipient, please 
>> notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete 
>> it from your system. Thank you.
>