Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] a couple last items

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with the Jeffs.

On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 
> I agree with Jeff E.
> 
> 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 Jeff Eckhaus
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 1:30 PM
> To: Rosette, Kristina; Jean Christophe VIGNES; Sivasubramanian M; Mike 
> O'Connor
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] a couple last items
> 
> 
> There is a major difference in "key proponents" and a list of supporters. I 
> am opposed to the list of supporters but if we want to include the key 
> proponents that is another story .
> I assume IPC proposal is self-explanatory , JN2 could be listed as Jon Nevett 
> and Jeff Neuman, RACK could be Afilias/PIR , but if we decide to put down all 
> the supporters and list them than we are back to the poll situation
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 10:25 AM
> To: Jeff Eckhaus; Jean Christophe VIGNES; Sivasubramanian M; Mike O'Connor
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] a couple last items
> 
> If the key proponents of each proposal are not identified, the failure to do 
> so will be interpreted as an effort to hide the information. Even if that's 
> not the motivation (and I'm not suggesting that it is), that's how it will be 
> interpreted. We're going to have to read enough public comment as it is 
> without having to wade through a bunch that seek to discredit all the work 
> b/c that information was not provided.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 1:19 PM
> To: Jean Christophe VIGNES; Sivasubramanian M; Mike O'Connor
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] a couple last items
> 
> 
> What if  I support multiple proposals? Should my name be on every proposal I 
> support? Who is responsible for adding and collecting the supporters for each 
> proposal?
> 
> Maybe if we have supporters we should have opposers listed (not sure if 
> opposers is a word, may need to ask Palin) .
> 
> I am just pointing out how ridiculous this seems to be getting that people 
> want to show their popularity and who was involved.  Is that how we want this 
> to be judged, by the people who wrote the proposals? How about we actually 
> let the proposals stand up on their own and be looked at for their merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Jean Christophe VIGNES
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 10:09 AM
> To: Sivasubramanian M; Mike O'Connor
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] a couple last items
> 
> 
> I fully agree. Besides the "supporters" for each proposal do appear clearly 
> in the Polls so that is at best redundant.
> 
> JC
> 
> Le 22/07/10 18:24, « Sivasubramanian M » <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> Mike,
> 
> This is just a point about uniformity of the format of proposals as featured 
> in the draft report.  On page 78, Rack + shows a list of supporters which was 
> possibly a section that the Rack + draft included to list co-proposers. But 
> in the draft report, Rack + happens to be the only proposal that shows a list 
> of supporters. Outsiders may get the impression (on a rapid glance) that Rack 
> + is the 'most supported' proposal, in the absence of a similar list of 
> supporters in the other proposals. So this part of the Rack + proposal may 
> please be deleted.
> 
> 
> Sivasubramanian M
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> again, sorry if this is "too much information" but we've just had an intense 
> storm run through here.  i need to go see if i still have a road to drive on.
> 
> i'm hoping a) to be back on the air in about an hour and b) to see a way 
> forward on those two remaining issues when i get back.
> 
> looks like we're seeing some conversation on Antony's thread.  Jeff, stir 
> yourself one last time and help us get your issue closed.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone   651-647-6109
> fax             866-280-2356
> web     http://www.haven2.com
> handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________
> Jean-Christophe Vignes
> 
> Executive Vice-President & General Counsel DCL Group 2, rue Léon Laval
> L-3372 Leudelange
> 
> Tel.:  +352  20 200 123
> Mobile : +352 691 600 424
> Fax.:   +352 20 300 123
> Mailto: JCVignes@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> www.datacenter.eu   | www.eurodns.com   | www.voipgate.com
> 
> ________________________________
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for 
> the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have 
> received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and 
> delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its 
> contents to anyone.
> 
> Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
>