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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I did read and did consider it insufficient.  Hence my comment letting you know 
that I considered this a gloss over.  

I do not know why you presume i have not read something i am commenting on.

a.

On 20 Jul 2010, at 08:32, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 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.
>> 
> 
>