I support this statement, it's very clear.

One suggestion might be to mention the prominence of vertical
separation issues in other communications sectors and its treatment as
a policy issue dealt with by regulatory process  - just to highlight
that the issue should not be considered a staff implementation task.
But this is just a suggestion, it's fine without.


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



On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Milton L Mueller<[log in to unmask]> 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
>