ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration

  • To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "vertical integration wg" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
  • From: "Hammock, Statton" <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:13:38 -0400

To be clear on my motivation for making the suggestion, JN2 was not the
proposal I supported the most, so I did not suggest it because it was
"mine." I suggested it because of all the proposals, I felt this one is
the best one to start with if we hope to gain some consensus in 3 days
(for the reasons I stated in my original message).  Others may feel
differently, and I am fine with that, of course.  But I want it known
that my suggestion was not wholly self-serving.  I'd like to see us
recommend something rather than risk having the Board make a
determination that none of us will like. 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 9:03 AM
To: vertical integration wg
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration

On 27 Sep 2010, at 08:42, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> Statton,
> The same claim could be made for RACK+. This isn't the time or place
for more of the my-proposal-is-better-than-yours-is rhetoric.
> Eric

yeah, it was all i could do in my first note (but now i will get the
plug in) to refrain fro saying that CAM was the closest in that it
included the regulatory element and a specific check for market power

but Eric is right (and you all know how easily that phrase comes to my

this should _not_ be a pick mine moment.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy