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 [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary Wong [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 6:13 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 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: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> 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 <[log in to unmask]>
> To:     <[log in to unmask]>
> 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.
> 
>