Re: [council] Motion from IDNG

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

It is now.  

I have similar process concerns.  I also have substance concerns.


------Original Message------
From: Tim Ruiz
To: GNSO Council
ReplyTo: Tim Ruiz
Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG
Sent: May 19, 2010 3:52 PM


Chuck,

Some of the Councilors, including myself, were copied on a letter from
Jeff Neuman to the Council regarding this motion. Is that going to
posted to the Council list? I'd like an opportunity to discuss it and
understand others' thoughts on it.

Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, May 19, 2010 2:09 pm
To: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


I agree with Avri's response.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:50 PM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG
> 
> 
> Hi Kristina,
> Forwarding a note from Avri who helped write the document:
> 
> 
> Hi Edmon -
> 
> On 19 May 2010, at 10:12, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
> 
> > Is the exception extended to apply only where (a) the same entity is
> the
> applicant for both strings; or (b) there is a unity of source for the
> strings by virtue of a corporate relationship or legal agreement
> between the
> applicant and the operator of the prior string?
> 
> 
> My single person opinion.
> 
> I think that is pretty much up to the determination of the extended
> panel.
> Obviously the second example shows that it does not need to be the same
> entity. It would be up to the panel to figure out whether

------Original Message Truncated------