RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] DAG4

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

Can we discuss on the call today?  Have not had time to focus on this yet and 
frankly trying to catch up on everything non-VI related.

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: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:57 AM
To: briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] DAG4

anybody have a problem with this?

i'll assume this is OK unless i hear otherwise...

mikey


On Jul 22, 2010, at 7:02 AM, Brian Cute wrote:


I commend the drafters (primarily RT and JN I believe) for their good attempt 
to interpret the meaning and potential implication of DAG4.  I think it needs 
to be made explicit that individual members of the VIWG don't necessarily 
adhere to this interpretation since it remains unclear what implementation of 
DAG4 would look like if that's what the final policy became.  Could a phrase to 
that effect be added to the text?  "nor do all individual members of the VIWG 
adhere to this interpretation."

- - - - - - - - -
phone    651-647-6109
fax                          866-280-2356
web        http://www.haven2.com
handle   OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)