RE: Explanatory Memorandum


Alan is correct that your email is non-responsive to the question.  All we are asking for is some clarity as to the process and standards that are being applied to our work.  

I believe I posed two other procedural questions in the original email.  Thoughts on those?

Mike Zaneis
SVP & General Counsel
Interactive Advertising Bureau
(202) 253-1466

Follow me on Twitter @mikezaneis

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Chapell [] 
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 10:19 AM
To: Thomas Roessler; Mike Zaneis
Cc:; Peter Swire; Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)
Subject: Re: Explanatory Memorandum

Thomas, your answer is non-responsive. Have you taken Roy's recent email into consideration?

I'm confused. Are we waiting until Wed to have this discussion or are we going to have it on list?

On 7/19/13 10:14 AM, "Thomas Roessler" <> wrote:

>On 2013-07-18, at 20:38 -0400, Mike Zaneis <> wrote:
>>> Also of note: "When the Chair believes that the Group has duly 
>>>considered the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is 
>>>possible and reasonable, the group should move on."
>> I'm not advocating this decision, but by your standard the Chairs 
>>would have no choice but to "move on" from the entire June Draft given 
>>the group's collective dissent to it. The issues that exist in the 
>>June Draft have been debated for 18 months with little to no progress. 
>>For probably a dozen issues the group has "considered the legitimate 
>>concerns" of all sides to no resolution.
>The chairs have layed out a path to get to a conclusion, based on the 
>June draft and the change proposals that are before the group.  We're 
>through the first decision in that path, pruning a piece of the 
>decision tree that we're working through.

Received on Friday, 19 July 2013 14:33:28 UTC