ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
  • From: "Hammock, Statton" <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:30:55 -0400

Thank you Stephane, because that certainly was the spirit in which it was 
intended.  I was merely attempting to rally efforts of the WG participants one 
last time - starting from a proposal which I believe had fairly broad support.  
That is all. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 11:21 AM
To: Hammock, Statton
Cc: Avri Doria; vertical integration wg
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration

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.


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.

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy