Notes on NCUC/NCSG meeting today

[Mary Wong]

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
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100311/0ffc9448/attachment.html>