[ncsg-policy] Re: Vertical integration charter

[Milton L Mueller]

OK, it looks as if all the feedback I've gotten favors the more delimited, policy determination objective.
If there are any dissenting voices please speak up, otherwise Avri and I will report to the DT that we (NCUC/NCSG) favor the first version of Objective 5.
--MM

________________________________
From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Brenden Kuerbis [bkuerbis at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG]
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 12:05 PM
To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [ncsg-policy] Re: Vertical integration charter

+1, it is best to limit the scope of the PDP as best we can

---------------------------------------
Brenden Kuerbis
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org


On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Mary Wong <MWong at piercelaw.edu<mailto:MWong at piercelaw.edu>> wrote:
I agree and support Milton's and Avri's version, particularly in view of the very tight time frame the PDP will take place in.

Cheers
Mary

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu<mailto:mwong at piercelaw.edu>
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>>
From:   William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>>
To:     NCUC Members List <NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>>, NCSG-Policy <ncsg-policy at n4c.eu<mailto:ncsg-policy at n4c.eu>>
Date:   2/21/2010 6:30 AM
Subject:        [ncsg-policy] Re: Vertical integration charter
Hi

On Feb 21, 2010, at 1:23 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

My version, on the other hand, simply asks the WG to make a determination whether the staff deviated from existing policy/practices in drafting the contract. That is a more objective, well-defined and less open-ended objective and can be completed in a reasonable period of time.
Therefore, I am asking for your support so that Avri and I can legitimate tell the Drafting Team that NCUC/NCSG support the first version of Objective 5.

Of course.  Our point was always to set in place a coherent and reasoned framework to replace decision making based on staff fiat, not to slow down new gTLDs.

Bill


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100221/dfb4ca26/attachment.html>