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

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

I argued this on the call and lost on this point.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu Jul 22 18:04:10 2010
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] a couple last items


The problem with lists of supporters is that it confuses substance with 
politics. We have the poll results to indicate how much support each proposal 
has, that is sufficient. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 2:55 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] a couple last items
> 
> 
> hi,
> 
> the names of those who foisted CAM on the rest of you are included in a
> footnote in CAM.
> 
> i have no objection to the RACK including its list of
> authors/proponents.
> 
> a.
> 
> information is a good thing, the more the better people can comment
> 
> 
> On 22 Jul 2010, at 14:45, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
> 
> > It is perfectly alright to include a list of supporters / proponents
> in EVERY proposal, but not in one or two of several proposals.  There
> may not be time to post lists of supporters of the remaining proposals
> and as Jeff Eckhaus pointed out, there is also the complication of
> participants who support multiple proposals. So the easy way out is to
> delete any list of supporters featured in any of the proposals.
> >
> >
> > Sivasubramanian M
> > http://turiya.co.in
> >
> > http://www.isocmadras.com
> > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
> > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
> > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> >  Ken Stubbs wrote:
> >
> > Jeff,
> > Lets not try to turn this into some last minute subversive move by
> RACK+  to include a list of supporters.
> > The supporter list has been included in every RACK  proposal that was
> submitted to this WG starting
> > as far back as the middle of May.
> >
> > The IPC proposal has a detailed list of 15+ participants and I have no
> problem with that as well
> > There are also references in the CAM proposal to the proposers as
> well.
> >
> > I have no problems with including WG supporters on any of the
> proposals.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/22/2010 1:19 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>