ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ispcp]

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

Re: [ispcp] Comments on Vertigal Integration

  • To: tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [ispcp] Comments on Vertigal Integration
  • From: maruyama@xxxxxxxxx (MARUYAMA Naomasa)
  • Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:18:41 +0900 (JST)
  • Cc: olivier.muron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <003c01cb3925$4a962c40$dfc284c0$@com> (tonyarholmes@btinternet.com)
  • List-id: ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: maruyama@xxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>From: "Tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:17:43 +0100

>I fully endorse the need for the ISPs to respond on this. If Masa's
>compromise is acceptable, fine. Failing that I suggest we revise the
>statement to omit any comment on this particularly contentious issue.

Thanks Tony.  I understand we all agree to the "Compliance point" in
Antonio's draft and point 1,2,4 of the "Key Principles Developed by
the VI Working Group".  The only contentious point is number 3.  I
believe my compromise in the previous message is just describing this
situation objectively, but still ready to accept further compromise
in order to express our consensus points.

Regards,

Masa.

----
(Mr.) NaoMASA Maruyama
Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>