RE: [council] Motion from IDNG

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim,

For some reason Tim I did not receive your message.  In answer to your
question, Glen distributed Jeff's message to the Council list as I
assume you already saw and we certainly can discuss it in the meeting.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 4:00 PM
> To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion from IDNG
> 
> 
> 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------