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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm surprised at both Avri and Eric's reaction to Statton's email which I 
didn't read as a "pick mine" email at all. I read it as a constructive "let's 
get things done" email.

Stéphane

Le 27 sept. 2010 à 15:13, Hammock, Statton a écrit :

> 
> 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. 
> 
> Statton 
> 
> 
> -----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
> fingers).  
> 
> this should _not_ be a pick mine moment.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
>