RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] DAG4

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I can support Brian's amendment as it is indeed factual.

 

And I also support our co-chair's call for a short call today.  If anyone
has major issues with the IR please bring them to the list as soon as
possible so that proper consideration can be given to them.

 

Thanks,

 

RA  

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 10:59 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] DAG4 

 

i'd like to get these remaining issues hammered out before the call if
possible.  my goal for the call is short, boring, no debates.  

 

 

 

On Jul 22, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:





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.)

 

 

- - - - - - - - -

phone    651-647-6109  

fax                           866-280-2356  

web        http://www.haven2.com

handle   OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)