Notes on NCUC/NCSG meeting today

[Milton L Mueller]

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100311/adeeff8d/attachment.html>