Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Salop and Wright - Edits to Section 2.2

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim:

Let me explain the change.  I found the words "minimal restrictions" to be 
vague and ambiguous.  Who would know what is meant by "minimal restrictions" -- 
let alone whether one would agree or not that the 100K cap idea was minimal.  I 
just added the fact of what is in DAGv2.  If I didn't describe it well enough, 
we could edit the description or even drop a footnote with the actual text if 
folks prefer.  

Thanks.

Jon

Old
"In response, Staff published a proposed model in the Draft Applicant 
Guidebook- Version 2 that included minimal restrictions on vertical integration 
in the form new gTLD registry agreement.

New
"In response, Staff published a proposed model in the Draft Applicant 
Guidebook- Version 2 that included a new gTLD registry agreement with a 100,000 
name restriction on any cross-owned entity."




On Jul 20, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> I agree with Jeff's revision. Phil's typo fix is fine, but I don't think
> Jon's change is necessary. It isn't any more accurate and including
> details like that actually distracts from the main point.
> 
> Tim 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Salop and Wright - Edits to Section 2.2
> From: Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, July 20, 2010 6:28 am
> To: Phil Buckingham <pjbuckingham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Phil:
> 
> Thanks for pointing out that sentence. I made one suggested change to it
> as well in the attached. Agree with the rest of Jeff's changes.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 20, 2010, at 5:42 AM, Phil Buckingham wrote:
> 
>> Jeff,
>> 
>> As ever, well drafted . To the outsider , maybe a new applicant , it is 
>> factual and objective . If they , or indeed the Board members, want to delve 
>> deeper it is sufficiently cross referenced , to enable them to draw their 
>> own conclusions. Pleased that "all advocacy" has been removed.
>> 
>> I think there is a minor typo " Version 2 that included minimal restrictions 
>> on vertical integration in the form ( insert - of a ) new gTLD registry 
>> agreement " .
>> 
>> regards
>> 
>> Phil Buckingham
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Neuman, Jeff
>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 10:41 PM
>> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Salop and Wright - Edits to Section 2.2
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> Based on today’s discussion and the agreement to remove Section 4 of the 
>> Initial report, I have drafted some language that we can include in Section 
>> 2.2 to discuss Salop and Wright. On the call we discussed not having the 
>> report as an Annex, but rather just linking to it.
>> 
>> I would like for everyone to review to make sure that they are comfortable 
>> with what I have drafted. I believe it is objective and takes out all of the 
>> advocacy. That said, I wrote it so of course I feel this way.
>> 
>> I am particularly interested in feedback from Avri, as I believe this is the 
>> reason for her protest and wanting a Minority Report.
>> 
>> P.S., I took the text from the Wiki, put it in Word and therefore was not 
>> able to get the footnotes right. 
>> 
>> Let me know your thoughts.
>> 
>> 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 / 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.
>> 
>