Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes |
Date: |
Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:13:52 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi,
Makes sense. the policy stuff will be needed when, and if, it is time
for constituency statements.
a.
On 28 Aug 2009, at 14:05, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Hello, all
> I've gotten some feedback from external stakeholders on our statement.
> This made it clear to me that the section on "policy issues" is
> something of a distraction to what our main point needs to be at
> this time. People who agree or disagree with those points tend to
> get stuck in that and lose sight of the recommendations, especially
> the all-important one that we need to have a policy process. Once we
> have a real policy process, we can debate and discuss the policy
> issues and take positions as NCUC; but it is needless to do that now.
>
> For that reason I offer this modified, and I hope final version,
> which simply eliminates the section formerly headlines as "Policy
> issues" and emphasizes the need to treat this as a policy issue and
> move the PDP process forward in the GNSO.
>
> <word doc attached>
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
> <NCUC-verticalRY-Rr-final.doc>
|
|
|