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

[Jean Christophe VIGNES <jcvignes@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Indeed we do need to "get things done" and I thank Statton for getting the ball 
rolling... I'm not surprised that some of us seem happy with the status quo but 
I'm worried the majority of others stay silent.

We have started this effort in February, to see it reduced as "no consensus, 
move on" saddens me.

I can make myself available in the next three days.

JC


(Sent from my BlackBerry)
---------------------------------
Jean-Christophe Vignes
EVP & General Counsel

DCL Group

http://JCVignes.tel



-----Original Message-----

From: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:22:17 America/New_York
To: shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: avri@xxxxxxx,Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
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.

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.
>
>
>



--------------------------------------------------------

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.

--------------------------------------------------------