Notes on NCUC/NCSG meeting today

[Alex Gakuru]

I am so sorry to hear this. When did it happen? No wonder I could not
trace you around the venue.  Pole sana.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> Dear people, sorry for having disappeared for about two days -- bad case of
> food poisoning.
>
> Curious note -- I went to the information desk looking for the doctor, they
> said they did not know about any ICANN doctor. Talked to the support people
> and they found him -- very gentle Dr Brian Bird. He took me to the ambulance
> to measure my blood pressure, and discovered that the ambulance had no
> sphygmomanometer (believe me, this is the name of the blood pressure
> metering device), and the ambulance operator got ready to rush me to
> hospital. Thanks to a shocked Dr Bird (how come an ambulance has no
> sphygnowathever? etc) he retained me, gave me good advice and I am ready for
> another.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>> Last night I saw Avri's YouTube interview on the EoI topic and was fully
>> convinced. That kind of wording makes it clear that we want to move ahead
>> with opening things up, and Wendy's point is true that it requires making a
>> permanent commitment before one knows what one is getting into. I am happy
>> with the statement that came out of the NCSG meeting.
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On
>> Behalf Of Mary Wong [MWong at PIERCELAW.EDU]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 6:13 AM
>> To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Notes on NCUC/NCSG meeting today
>>
>> I'm not sure where we are in this discussion (been having trouble remotely
>> with my email server), but FWIW I agree with (1) Avri that the EoI is likely
>> to result in further delay (e.g. its reference to a refund only if a full
>> launch doesn't happen in 18 months); and (2) Wendy that its mandatory nature
>> makes it, in effect, a true application at the pre-launch phase.
>>
>> My personal opinion is also that I don't oppose an EoI in concept, but
>> this particular EoI is flawed as is.
>>
>> 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:   Avri Doria <avri at LTU.SE>
>> To:     <NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>> Date:   3/9/2010 10:00 AM
>> Subject:        Re: Notes on NCUC/NCSG meeting today
>> On 9 Mar 2010, at 17:33, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>>> In relation to this exchange:
>>>
>>> Willy curry – where does gac unease come from
>>> Avri – its binding nature. It perceives it as starting the round without
>>> their issues being resolved.
>>>
>>> That provides a pretty good explanation of why I SUPPORTED the EoI.
>>
>> If the EOI can't be started until everything is resolved,
>> then why do you need an EOI?
>>
>> It is not needed to resolve the scaling issue, utting names in in batches
>> a ew at a time is going to resolve that it real time.  the specialtion ange
>> from the DNS not being able to eve support 20 to it being able to support
>> 1000s.  any number EOI gives will not resolve the issue of how many before
>> wisps of smoke come out of the DNS
>>
>> On TM FUD.  Why is there any expectation that any amount of data will top
>> their creativity when it comes to FUD?
>>
>> I reject the idea completely since i see it as yet another process that
>> only achieves delay in the original process.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>